GIFT   OF 
MICHAEL  REE^E 


Shall  Women  Vote? 


•N 


Shall  Women  Vote? 


A  Book 
For  Men 


By 


CON  WAY  WHITTLE  SAMS 


Author   of   "Sams   on  Attachment" 
and  a  Member  of  the  Virginia  Bar 


NEW  YORK 

THE  NEALE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

1913 


S3 


Copyright,  1913,  by 
CONWAY  WHITTLE  SAMS 


r' 
* 


To  the 
ANTI-SUFFRAGETTES 

this  volume  is  respectfully  inscribed, — to  our  fair 
allies,  who  have  the  good  judgment  and  the  cour- 
age to  resist  an  insidious  heresy,  and  to  strive  to 
keep  extant  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  true  and 
lovable  women,  the  most  precious  gift  of  the 
Creator,  in  order  that  they  may  be  the  worthy 
successors  of  the  sweethearts,  the  wives,  and  the 
mothers  who  lived,  honored  and  beloved,  before 
the  world  had  ever  heard  of  a  Suffragette. 


284496 


CONTENTS 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I     15 

II     25 

III     35 

IV     43 

V     65 

VI     83 

VII     102 

VIII     116 

IX 137 

X     167 

XI     178 

FATHER  AND  CHILD 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I     185 

II     200 

III     210 

IV     217 

V     229 

VI     .... 239 

VII     251 

VIII     255 

CONCLUSION 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I     273 

II     284 

HI     287 

IV     302 

V     314 

INDEX .  .324  to  345 


INTRODUCTION 

This  book  is  not  written  for  women;  it  is  writ- 
ten for  men.  It  is  in  opposition  to  woman's  suf- 
frage, which  the  writer  regards  as  one  of  the 
greatest  afflictions  which  could  happen  to  any 
State.  The  plan  adopted  is  a  review  of  the  laws 
and  customs  of  society  in  the  past,  contrasting 
them  with  those  in  force  at  present,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  rights  of  men  in  the  relation  of  Hus- 
band and  Wife,  and  of  Father  and  Child. 

Considered  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  effect  of 
the  new  "woman's  rights"  laws  upon  the  rights 
of  men,  one  cannot  intelligently  appreciate  nor 
discuss  the  question  "Should  women  have  the 
right  to  vote?"  without  knowing  that  this  question 
involves  the  most  vital  point  in  the  history  of  a 
movement  which  has  been  in  progress  for  a  gen- 
eration,— a  movement  which  has  as  its  object  the 
stripping  of  men  of  their  rights,  and  the  trans- 
ferring of  them  to  women  and  children.  The 
question  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  what  men 
have  already  suffered  by  this  movement,  and  what 
this  final  demand  would  mean  to  them. 

The  particular  laws  of  only  one  State  are  here 
given, — those  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia. 
Residents  of  other  States  may  compare  them  with 
their  own  institutions.  Fortunately,  they  will  be 
often  found  to  be  very  different,  and  should  for- 

9 


remain  so,  if  freedom  is  to  be  preserved  in 
America.  The  several  States  of  the  Union  have 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  subjects  herein  dis- 
cussed, and  should  preserve  the  right  to  decide 
upon  them  as  they  severally  think  best. 

It  is  proposed  to  show  in  this  volume  that  the 
recent  changes  introduced  in  Virginia  in  regard  to 
the  domestic  relations,  very  similar  to  some 
adopted  by  other  States,  are  enough  to  undermine 
the  family,  the  home,  and  society  itself;  and  that, 
unless  they  be  soon  corrected  by  the  several  States 
of  this  Union,  and  by  the  other  governments  or- 
ganized by  men  of  our  race,  they  will  bring  untold 
evil  upon  it. 

The  object  of  the  work  is  to  do  good,  not  evil; 
to  aid  in  maintaining  peace,  not  to  bring  about 
disorder.  To  any  but  the  blind  it  is  apparent  that 
a  contest  may  be  precipitated  by  the  demands  of 
the  suffragettes  which  could  be  most  bitter,  even 
to  the  extent  of  tearing  asunder  the  tenderest  re- 
lationships. There  is  no  need  for  us  to  have  to 
go  through  the  agony  of  such  a  contest,  nor  to 
suffer  the  evils  which  might,  could,  would,  or 
should  follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  ideas  of 
these  women.  The  question  has  been  publicly  dis- 
cussed almost  entirely  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
suffragette.  The  counter  argument  has  not  been 
adequately  stated.  It  is  the  aim  of  this  book  to 
present  the  subject  in  such  a  way  that  the  men 
of  this  generation  can  clearly  see  what  effect  a 
yielding  to  this  demand  would  have  upon  them. 


10 


We  will  be  sorry  if  what  is  here  written  should 
offend  any  woman;  but  the  subject,  which  is  pre- 
eminently a  practical  one,  involving  matters  of 
the  highest  importance,  deserves  to  be  fully  in- 
vestigated; and  facts,  although  they  may  be  dis- 
agreeable, or  in  themselves  uncomplimentary, 
should  not  be  passed  over  in  such  an  inquiry.  The 
suffragettes  have  alleged  that  the  existing  order 
of  things  should  'be  changed,  and  are  moving 
heaven  and  earth  to  change  it.  It  is  proper  to 
inquire  fully  whether  this  should  be  done. 

To  all  womanly  women  who  may  feel  offended 
at  any  general  statements  herein,  which  might  be 
regarded  as  reflections  upon  their  half  of  human- 
ity, we  say  with  all  sincerity  that  these  statements 
are  not  intended  to  apply  to  them.  To  -the  con- 
trary, we  regard  them  as  the  salt  of  the  earth,  and 
they  are  not  the  subjects  of  the  present  criticism. 
CONWAY  WHITTLE  SAMS. 

NORFOLK,  VIRGINIA,  March  17,  1913. 


"Order  is  Heaven's  first  law" 


Husband  and  Wife 


Husband  and  Wife 

CHAPTER  I 

"And  God  said :  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness."  (Genesis,  I,  26.)  "And  the 
Lord  God  said,  It  is  not  good  that  the  man 
should  be  alone ;  I  will  make  him  an  helpmeet  for 
him."  (Genesis,  II,  18.) 

The  divine  view  of  this  relation  is  left  in  no 
uncertain  state  by  the  Bible. 

The  opening  chapter  in  the  history  of  the 
human  race  deals  with  this  subject,  and  the 
Creator  himself  laid  down  the  rule  which  should 
apply  to  it.  To  Eve  he  said:  "Thy  desire  shall 
be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee." 
(Genesis,  III,  16.) 

This  rule,  necessary  for  the  peace  and  the  har- 
mony of  domestic  life,  giving  a  fixed  and  lawful 
authority  to  the  husband  as  the  head  of  the  house, 
is  repeatedly  reaffirmed  in  the  Bible,  and  consti- 
tutes to-day  the  moral  and  the  religious  law  gov- 
erning this  relation. 

Isaiah  compares  the  Lord,  in  a  certain  case, 
to  a  husband,  when  he  says :  "For  thy  Maker  is 
thine  husband;  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name." 
(Isaiah,  LIV,  5.) 

15 


1 6  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

The  relation  of  Christ  to  his  church  is  com- 
pared to  that  of  a  bridegroom  to  his  bride. 
(Isaiah,  LXII,  5;  Revelations,  XXI,  2,  9.) 

In  Romans  we  read:  "For  the  woman  which 
hath  an  husband  is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  hus- 
band as  long  as  he  liveth;  but  if  the  husband  be 
dead,  she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  husband." 
(Chapter  VII,  2.) 

And  in  the  letter  to  the  Corinthians  we  read: 
"And  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet  not  I, 
but  the  Lord,  Let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her 
husband:  But  and  if  she  depart,  let  her  remain 
unmarried,  or  be  reconciled  to  her  husband;  and 
let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  wife."  (I  Co- 
rinthians, VII,  10,  n.) 

So  in  Ephesians,  V,  33 :  "Nevertheless  let 
every  one  of  you  in  particular  so  love  his  wife 
even  as  himself;  and  the  wife  see  that  she  rever- 
ence her  husband." 

"Let  the  'husband  render  unto  the  wife  due 
benevolence;  and  likewise  also  the  wife  unto  her 
husband."  (I  Corinthians,  VII,  3.) 

"Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  own  hus- 
bands, as  unto  the  Lord.  For  the  husband  is  the 
head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 
church;  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body.  There- 
fore, as  the  church  is  subject  unto  Christ,  so  let 
the  wives  be  to  their  own  husbands  in  everything. 
Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also 
loVed  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it." 
(Ephesians,  V,  22-25.) 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  17 

So  we  find  the  relation  clearly  defined  by  St. 
Peter : 

"Likewise,  ye  wives,  be  in  subjection  to  your 
own  husbands.  .  .  .  Even  as  Sara  obeyed 
Abraham,  calling  him  lord;  whose  daughters  ye 
are,  as  long  as  ye  do  well,  and  are  not  afraid  with 
any  amazement.  Likewise,  ye  husbands,  dwell  with 
them  according  to  knowledge,  giving  honour  unto 
the  wife,  as  unto  the  weaker  vessel,  and  as  being 
heirs  together  of  .the  grace  of  life;  that  your 
prayers  be  not  hindered."  (I  Peter,  III,  1-7.) 

So  in  Colossians,  III,  18:  "Wives,  submit 
yourselves  unto  your  own  husbands,  as  it  is  fit  in 
the  Lord." 

And  in  I  Corinthians,  XI,  3,8,9:  "But  I  would 
have  you  know,  that  the  head  of  every  man  is 
Christ;  and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man. 
For  the  man  is  not  of  the  woman;  but 
the  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man 
created  for  the  woman;  but  the  woman  for  the 


man." 


In  the  epistle  to  Titus  St.  Paul  admonishes  the 
aged  women  to  "teach  the  young  women  to  be 
sober,  to  love  their  husbands,  to  love  their  chil- 
dren, to  be  discreet,  chaste,  keepers  at  home, 
good,  obedient  to  their  husbands,  that  the  word 
of  God  be  not  blasphemed."  (Titus,  II,  4,  5.) 

Of  course  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers  on  this  subject  are  what  they  de- 
rived from  our  Lord,  expressing  His  ideas  and 
probably  His  very  words. 


1 8  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

The  tender  love  which  should  characterize  the 
relation  is  laid  down  in  the  rule :  "So  ought  men 
to  love  their  wives  as  their  own  bodies.  He  that 
loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself.  For  no  man  ever 
yet  hated  his  own  flesh;  but  nourisheth  and  cher- 
isheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  church."  (Ephes- 
ians,  V,  28,  29.) 

Such  is  the  biblical,  the  religious,  the  divine 
view  of  this  fundamental  relation  of  society.  An 
acceptance  of  it,  as  the  working  rule  in  the  do- 
mestic circle,  solves  at  once  most  of  the  questions 
which  can  arise.  The  authority  is  fixed,  definitely 
vested  in  the  husband,  giving  him  the  legal  and 
the  moral  right  to  control.  There  is  no  attempt 
at  an  equal  division  of  authority  in  this  matter. 
That  would  only  lead  to  domestic  discord.  It  is 
the  right  of  the  husband  to  command,  and  the 
duty  of  the  wife  to  obey. 

This  divine  view  is  fully  carried  out  in  the 
religious  ceremony  of  the  church  when  a  marriage 
is  celebrated.  This  ceremony  is  not  a  mere  form  ; 
it  is  the  formation  of  a  contract  to  last  for  life; 
and,  in  making  it,  these  vitally  important  features 
are  provided  for,  and  covered. 

The  parties  appear  before  the  officiating  clergy- 
man. Each  is  asked  if  he  or  she  will  take  the 
other  as  husband  or  wife.  The  questions  contain 
the  substance  of  the  contract,  and  beautifully  de- 
fine the  duties  of  each. 

The  husband  is  asked:  "Wilt  thou  have  this 
woman  to  be  thy  wedded  wife,  to  live  together 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  19 

after  God's  ordinance  in  the  holy  estate  of  matri- 
mony? Wilt  them  love  her,  comfort  her,  honor 
and  keep  her,  in  sickness  and  in  health;  and,  for- 
saking all  others,  keep  thee  only  unto  her,  so 
long  as  ye  both  shall  live?" 

The  husband  when  he  says  "I  will"  makes  this 
a  solemn  agreement  and  stipulation  on  his  part. 

Leaving  out  the  agreements  which  are  common 
to  both  parties,  the  essential  features  of  the  re- 
lation are  sharply  brought  out  in  the  special  agree- 
ments of  each: 

The  husband  promises  specially  to  comfort  his 
wife. 

The  wife  promises  specially  to  obey  and  serve 
her  husband. 

If  the  parties  do  not  mean  to  keep  these  con- 
tracts, they  should  not  make  them.  After  the 
wife  has  promised  to  obey  and  serve  her  husband 
she  has  no  right  to  raise  any  question  afterward 
on  this  point.  The  matter  was  settled  at  the 
altar. 

Then  comes  a  very  significant  part  of  the  cere- 
mony. The  clergyman  asks:  "Who  giveth  this 
woman  to  be  married  to  this  man?"  What  a 
vista  of  the  customs,  the  traditions,  the  laws,  and 
the  usages  of  ages  is  opened  up  by  this  inquiry! 
Who  giveth  this  woman  to  be  married  to  this 
man?  The  woman,  of  course,  belongs  to  some 
man,  most  naturally  her  father,  or,  in  his  stead, 
her  brother,  or  some  other  of  the  male  members 
of  the  family.  This  person,  representing  the  family 


20  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

to  which  the  bride  has  up  to  this  time  belonged, 
rises  and  says  that  he  gives  her  away.  The  bride 
is  thus  legally  transferred  from  her  father's  family 
to  her  husband's  family.  Her  name  hitherto  has 
been  that  which  she  derived,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
from  her  father.  It  now  becomes  that  of  her 
husband.  The  one  name  is  changed  for  the  other. 
Ignorance  is  displayed  when  the  bride  drops  one 
of  the  names  given  her  in  baptism,  keeps  her 
father's  name,  and  adds  to  it  the  surname  of  her 
husband,  or  adds  her  husband's  surname  to  all  her 
own  names.  She  ought  to  know  that  the  fixed 
parts  of  her  name  are  those  given  her  at  baptism, 
— that  is,  her  Christian  name, — and  that  her 
family  name  came  to  her  of  necessity  from  her 
father.  When  she  marries,  therefore,  this  sur- 
name changes  by  a  like  process  of  law,  and  be- 
comes the  name  of  her  husband. 

Then  follows  in  the  marriage  ceremony  a  sol- 
emn reaffirmation  of  the  agreements  as  contained 
in  the  answers  to  the  minister's  questions,  in 
nearly  the  same  words  as  before  used,  the  wife 
again  promising  to  obey. 

After  this  comes  a  part  too  technical  to  be 
understood  by  all.  The  husband  says:  "With  all 
my  worldly  goods  I  thee  endow." 

This  means,  not  that  the  husband  then  and 
there  divests  himself  of  all  his  property,  nor  that 
after  the  ceremony  he  is  going  to  sign  a  deed 
turning  over  his  property  to  his  wife,  but  that  he 
gives  her  a  dower  interest  in  his  land, — that  is, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  21 

the  right  to  a  third  of  all  his  real  estate  for  her 
life,  if  she  survive  him.  The  word  "goods"  means 
land,  and  the  word  "endow"  means  to  give  a 
dower  interest  in  the  land.  The  ancient  way  of 
designating  all  a  man's  worldly  possessions  was 
to  call  them  his  "goods  and  chattels";  "goods" 
means  what  we  now  call  real  estate,  "chattels" 
originally  meant  cattle,  and  later  was  used  to  de- 
scribe all  his  movable  property, — that  is,  his  per- 
sonal property,  as  we  now  call  it. 

These  words  of  the  marriage  service  have  been 
very  generally  misunderstood.  The  people  who 
hear  them  do  not  know  their  meaning.  The 
words  "goods"  and  "endow,"  as  we  see,  are  tech- 
nical. The  ceremony  accomplished  in  law  exactly 
what  those  words  meant  in  law.  But  the  untech- 
nical  audiences  which  hear  them  think  that  they 
mean  that  the  husband  gives,  or  says  he  gives,  and 
therefore  should  give,  all  his  property  to  his  wife. 
These  words,  therefore,  have  done  their  part  in 
unsettling  the  mind  of  the  public  in  regard  to  the 
relations  which  should  subsist  'between  husband 
and  wife,  and  might  well  'be  converted  into  more 
modern  terms  better  understood. 

"I  give  you  a  dower  interest  in  such  land  as  I 
now  own,  or  may  hereafter  acquire"  is  what  the 
words  really  mean,  and  this  is  their  exact  legal 
effect. 

A  great  deal  of  legal  history  is  involved  in  this 
portion  of  the  marriage  ceremony,  which  is  thus 
explained:  "No  woman  can  claim  dower  unless 


22  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

she  has  been  endowed  at  the  church  door.  That 
is  Bracton's  rule,  and  it  is  well  borne  out  by  the 
case  law  of  his  time.  The  woman's  marriage  may 
be  an  indisputable  marriage,  but  she  is  to  have 
no  dower  if  she  was  not  endowed  at  the  church 
door.  We  soon  see,  however,  that  what  our 
justices  are  demanding  is,  not  a  religious  rite,  nor 
the  presence  of  an  ordained  clergyman,  but  pub- 
licity. We  see  this  very  plainly  when  Bracton  tells 
us  that  the  endowment  can  and  must  be  made  at 
the  church  door,  even  during  an  interdict  when  the 
bridal  mass  cannot  be  celebrated.  It  is  usual  to 
go  to  church  when  one  is  married;  all  decent  per- 
sons do  this,  and  all  persons  are  required  to  do 
it  by  ecclesiastical  law.  The  temporal  law  seizes 
hold  of  this  fact.  Marriages  contracted  else- 
where may  be  valid  enough,  but  only  at  the  church 
door  can  a  bride  be  endowed.  There  is  a  special 
reason  for  this  requirement.  The  common  con- 
trast to  the  church  door  marriage  is  the  death-bed 
marriage.  At  the  instance  of  the  priest,  and  with 
the  fear  of  death  before  him,  the  sinner  makes 
an  honest  woman  of  his  mistress.  This  may  do  well 
enough  for  the  church,  and  may,  one  hopes,  profit 
his  soul  in  another  world,  but  it  must  give  no 
rights  in  English  soil.  The  justices  who  demanded 
an  endowment  at  the  church  door  were  the  justices 
who  set  their  faces  against  testamentary  gifts  of 
land,  and  strenuously  endeavored  to  make  livery 
of  seisin  mean  a  real  change  of  possession.  The 
acts  which  give  rights  in  land  should  be  public, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  23 

notorious  acts."  (Pollock  and  Maitland's  "His- 
tory of  English  Law,"  Vol.  II,  p.  372.) 

"God's  holy  ordinance,"  according  to  which 
the  consorts  agree  to  live,  is  the  body  of  rules  on 
this  subject  that  are  laid  down  in  the  Bible,  and 
which  we  have  collected  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter. 

The  whole  ceremony,  as  expressed  in  one  of 
the  concluding  prayers,  is  a  "vow  and  covenant  be- 
twixt them  made,"  and  each  has  the  right  to  expect 
and  require  that  the  other  will  observe  it. 

Alas!  they  are  too  often  not  observed,  and 
the  present  demoralization  in  this  fundamental 
relation  follows. 

In  justice  to  the  women,  we  would  like  to  say 
that  we  believe  the  cause  of  the  present  disordered 
condition  of  marriage  does  not  lie  so  much  with 
them  personally  as  with  the  system  under  which 
they  find  themselves  living.  It  is  a  part  of  human 
nature  to  desire  to  do  what  is  expected  of  us, 
to  be  in  the  fashion,  and  to  conform  to  the 
accepted  standard.  Women  certainly  are  not  un- 
affected by  this  tendency. 

Now,  the  point  is  this:  If  the  established  rule 
of  society  be  that  the  women  are  to  be  dutiful  and 
obedient  wives,  they  will  try  to  be  so.  It  is  the 
road  to  peace  and  happiness,  and  if  this  be  what 
is  universally  expected  of  them,  they  would,  in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases,  try  their  best  to  con- 
form to  it.  If,  however,  fostered  by  unwise 
legislation,  and  endlessly  discussed  in  novels, 


24  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

newspapers,  magazines,  on  the  stage,  and 
in  societies,  the  claim  be  made  that  it  is 
a  wife's  duty  to  assert  herself,  to  try  to  have 
her  own  way  in  everything,  to  claim  to  be 
the  head  of  the  home,  to  restrict  her  husband's 
sphere  of  authority  to  a  dreary  office,  and  so  on, 
she  will  proceed,  to  the  best  of  her  ability,  to  do 
that.  The  same  woman  who  would,  under  one 
standard  set  up  by  society,  be  a  good  wife,  may, 
under  another  standard,  be  a  very  bad  one.  The 
standard  should  be  correct.  If  it  be  so,  the  world 
as  a  whole  will  move  smoothly, — that  is,  as 
smoothly  as  frail  human  nature,  with  its  insatiable 
desires,  fickleness,  and  follies,  will  let  it. 

If  the  standard  be  a  wrong  one,  it  should  be 
corrected;  and  the  way  to  correct  it  is  to  change 
the  law  on  the  subject.  Law  has  the  tendency, 
sooner  or  later,  to  affect  all  standards.  We  have 
changed,  and  nearly  broken  to  pieces,  the  laws  and 
customs  of  our  ancestors  in  this  matter;  and  the 
sooner  they  are  mended  and  reestablished  the 
better. 


CHAPTER  II 

In  studying  the  construction  of  society  in  the 
past  and  present,  we  find  that  there  has  been  in 
very  recent  years,  especially  in  this  country,  a  re- 
markable tendency  to  pass  laws  which  lessen  the 
importance,  rights,  privileges,  and  powers  of  hus- 
bands. In  order  to  appreciate  the  nature  and  the 
extent  of  this  change,  a  few  pages  will  suffice  to 
show  what  some  of  their  rights  were  in  the  past; 
then  there  will  be  presented  by  contrast  how  the 
legislation  of  this  State,  in  common  with  most  of 
the  other  American  States,  has  diminished  them 
in  the  present. 

The  ancient  construction  put  upon  this  relation 
was  in  harmony  with  the  Biblical  rules  on  the  sub- 
ject. In  very  early  times  the  powers  of  the  hus- 
band and  father,  in  his  domestic  circle,  were  prac- 
tically without  limit.  An  enumeration  of  them  is 
given  later  in  the  chapter  on  Father  and  Child. 
These  powers  of  the  husband  applied  to  both  the 
wife's  person  and  property.  The  illustrations  of 
this  power  there  given  are  taken  mainly  from 
Roman  law,  as  being  the  most  striking,  and  as 
being  the  oldest  jurisprudence,  except  the  Hebrew, 
with  which  the  writer  is  somewhat  familiar.  Al- 
though the  doctrines  there  stated  may  have  been 

25 


26  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

modified  in  certain  particulars  by  the  ancient 
Anglo-Saxon  jurisprudence,  they  will  serve  as  a 
general  presentation  of  it,  as  will  be  seen  by  read- 
ing Pollock  and  Maitland's  "History  of  English 
Law,"  on  the  subjects  of  "Marriage"  and  "Hus- 
band and  Wife,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  362-434. 

With  reference  to  property  rights  between  hus- 
band and  wife,  under  what  is  technically  known  as 
the  Common  Law, — that  is,  the  general  rules  and 
customs  of  law  applying  to  England,  which  is  the 
law  in  Virginia,  except  when  changed  by  an  act  of 
the  Legislature, — we  quote  from  the  above  work, 
Vol.  II,  p.  401 : 

"In  the  lands  of  which  the  wife  is  tenant  in 
fee,  whether  they  belonged  to  her  at  the  date  of 
the  marriage  or  came  to  her  during  the  marriage, 
the  husband  has  an  estate  which  will  endure  dur- 
ing the  marriage,  and  this  he  can  alienate  without 
her  concurrence.  If  a  child  is  born  of  the  marri- 
age, thenceforth  the  husband  as  'tenant  by  the 
curtesy'  has  an  estate  which  will  endure  for  the 
whole  of  his  life,  and  this  he  can  alienate  without 
the  wife's  concurrence.  The  husband  by  himself 
has  no  greater  power  of  alienation  than  is  here 
stated,  he  cannot  confer  an  estate  which  will  en- 
dure after  the  end  of  the  marriage,  or,  as  the 
case  may  be,  after  his  own  death.  The  wife  has 
during  the  marriage  no  power  to  alienate  her  land 
without  her  husband's  concurrence.  The  only 
process  whereby  the  fee  can  be  alienated  is  a 
'fine,'  to  which  both  husband  and  wife  are  parties, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  27 

and  to  which  she  gives  her  assent  after  a  separate 
examination. 

"A  widow  is  entitled  to  enjoy  for  'her  life  under 
the  name  of  dower  one-third  of  any  land  of  which 
the  husband  was  seized  in  fee  at  any  time  during 
the  marriage.  The  result  of  this  is  that  during 
the  marriage  the  husband  cannot  alienate  his  own 
land  so  as  to  bar  his  wife's  right  of  dower,  un- 
less this  is  done  with  her  concurrence,  and  her  con- 
currence is  ineffectual  unless  the  conveyance  is 
made  by  'fine.' 

"Our  law  institutes  no  community  even  of  mov- 
ables between  husband  and  wife.  Whatever  mov- 
ables the  wife  has  at  the  date  of  the  marriage  be- 
comes the  husband's,  and  the  husband  is  entitled 
to  take  possession  of,  and  thereby  to  make  his 
own,  whatever  movables  she  becomes  entitled  to 
during  the  marriage,  and  without  her  concurrence 
he  can  sue  for  all  debts  that  are  due  to  her.  On 
his  death,  however,  she  becomes  entitled  to  all 
movables  and  debts  that  are  outstanding,  that 
have  not  been  'reduced  into  possession.7  What 
the  husband  gets  possession  of  is  simply  his;  he 
can  freely  dispose  of  it  inter  vivos,  or  by  will. 
In  the  main  for  this  purpose  a  'term'  of  years  is 
treated  as  a  chattel,  but  under  an  exceptional  rule 
the  husband,  though  he  can  alienate  his  wife's 
'chattel  real'  inter  vivos,  it  will  be  hers  if  she 
survives  him.  If  he  survives  her,  he  is  entitled 
to  her  'chattels  real,'  and  is  also  entitled  to  be 
made  the  administrator  of  her  estate.  In  that 


28  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

capacity  he  is  entitled  to  whatever  movables  or 
debts  that  have  not  yet  been  'reduced  into  posses- 
sion,' and,  when  debts  have  been  paid,  he  is  en- 
titled to  these  as  his  own.  If  she  dies  in  his 
lifetime,  she  can  have  no  other  intestate  suc- 
cessor. Without  'his  consent  she  can  make  no  will, 
and  any  consent  that  he  may  have  given  is  revoc- 
able at  any  time  before  the  will  is  proved. 

"Our  common  law, — but  we  have  seen  that  this 
rule  is  not  very  old, — assured  no  share  of  the 
husband's  personalty  to  the  widow.  He  can  even 
by  his  will  give  all  of  it  away  from  her  except  her 
necessary  clothes,  and  with  that  exception  his 
creditors  can  take  all  of  it.  A  further  exception, 
of  which  there  is  not  much  read,  is  made  of  jewels, 
trinkets,  and  ornaments  of  the  person,  under  the 
name  of  paraphernalia.  The  husband  may  sell 
or  give  these  away  in  his  lifetime,  and  even  after 
his  death  they  may  be  taken  for  'his  debts;  but 
he  cannot  give  them  away  by  will.  If  a  husband 
dies  during  the  wife's  life  and  dies  intestate,  she 
is  entitled  to. a  third,  or  if  there  be  no  living 
descendants  of  the  husband,  to  one-half  of  his 
personalty.  But  this  is  a  case  of  pure  intestate 
succession;  she  only  has  a  share  of  what  is  left 
after  payment  of  her  husband's  debts. 

"During  the  marriage  the  husband  is  in  effect 
liable  to  the  whole  extent  of  his  property  for  debts 
incurred  or  wrongs  committed  by  his  wife  before 
the  marriage,  also  for  wrongs  committed  during 
the  marriage.  The  action  is  against  him,  and  not 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  29 

her,  as  co-defendant.  If  the  marriage  is  dissolved 
by  his  deaith,  she  is  liable,  his  estate  is  not.  If 
the  marriage  is  dissolved  by  her  death,  he  is 
liable  as  her  administrator,  but  only  to  the  extent 
of  the  property  that  he  takes  in  that  character. 

"During  the  marriage  the  wife  cannot  contract 
on  her  own  behalf.  She  can  contract  as  her  hus- 
band's agent,  and  has  a  certain  power  of  pledging 
his  credit  in  the  purchase  of  necessaries.  At  the 
end  of  the  middle  ages,  it  is  very  doubtful  how  far 
this  power  is  to  be  explained  by  an  'implied 
agency.'  The  tendency  of  more  recent  times  has 
been  to  allow  her  no  power  that  cannot  be  thus 
explained,  except  in  the  exceptional  case  of  de- 
sertion." 

Such  was  the  body  of  rules  on  this  subject  which 
existed  in  Virginia,  and  which  would  have  con- 
tinued to  be  the  law  to  this  day  but  for  legis- 
lative changes  more  or  less  recent. 

Roughly  summarized,  the  law  was  that  the 
husband  was  bound  to  the  extent  of  his 
resources  to  support  his  wife;  and  that,  partly 
as  compensation  and  aid  to  him  in  discharg- 
ing this  obligation,  and  partly  as  his  right  as  head 
of  the  family,  'he  owned  her  personal  property, 
and  had  the  use  of  her  real  estate  during  the  mar- 
riage, and  for  the  rest  of  his  life,  if  they  had 
children.  If  there  were  special  reasons  to  dis- 
trust the  husband's  ability  to  manage  property,  or 
if  he  were  heavily  indebted  and  it  were  thought 
desirable  to  prevent  his  owning  his  wife's  prop- 


3o  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

erty,  by  means  of  a  specially  created  equitable  sep- 
arate estate  this  was  accomplished. 

The  men  of  the  great  State  of  Texas  have  had 
the  virility  to  adhere  to  the  Common  Law  of  Eng- 
land in  regard  to  all  these  matters  of  property 
rights  as  between  them  and  their  wives.  Of 
course  their  doing  so  is  now  attacked  furiously  by 
the  women;  but  if  they  stand  firm,  they  will  con- 
tinue to  occupy  a  position  in  all  these  domestic 
affairs  greatly  above  that  held  by  the  men  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  infinitely  superior  to  that  of  the  men 
in  the  States  where  women  are  put  on  an  equality 
with  men. 

Let  us  see  what  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  has 
done  with  these  rules,  and  in  what  position  they 
have  finally  placed  all  the  husbands  in  the  State. 

Section  2286  A  of  the  Code  now  provides  as 
follows : 

"A  married  woman  shall  have  the  right  to 
acquire,  hold,  use,  control,  and  dispose  of  prop- 
erty as  if  she  were  unmarried,  and  such  power 
of  use,  control,  and  disposition  shall  apply  to  all 
property  of  a  married  woman  heretofore  or  here- 
after acquired;  provided,  however,  that  her  hus- 
band shall  be  entitled  to  curtesy  in  her  real  estate 
when  the  common  law  requisites  therefor  exist; 
and  he  shall  not  be  deprived  thereof  by  her  sole 
act;  but  the  right  to  curtesy  shall  not  entitle  him 
to  the  possession  or  use,  or  to  the  rents,  issues, 
and  profits,  of  said  real  estate  during  the  cover- 
ture ;  nor  shall  the  property  of  the  wife  be  subject 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  31 

to  the  debts  or  liabilities  of  the  'husband.  A  mar- 
ried woman  may  contract  and  be  contracted  with, 
sue  and  be  sued,  in  the  same  manner  and  with  the 
same  consequences  as  if  she  were  unmarried, 
whether  the  right  or  liability  asserted  by  or  against 
her  shall  have  accrued  before  or  after  the  pas- 
sage of  this  act.  A  husband  shall  not  be  respons- 
ible for  any  contract,  liability,  or  tort  of  his  wife, 
whether  the  contract  or  liability  was  incurred  or 
the  tort  was  committed  before  or  after  the  mar- 
riage." (Acts  1899-1900,  p.  1240.) 

When  a  married  woman  is  a  minor  neither  her 
father  nor  her  husband  is  to  have  any  control 
over  her  property,  but  her  estate  is  committed  to  a 
"receiver"  by  an  order  of  court.  Section  2291 
provides  in  this  double  emergency  the  following 
legislative  gem: 

"When  a  woman  is  a  minor  at  the  time  of  her 
marriage,  and  is  then  entitled  to  any  estate,  or 
during  her  coverture,  and  while  a  minor,  becomes 
entitled  to  any  estate,  she  shall  not  during  the 
coverture,  and  while  a  minor,  have  the  control  and 
management  of  such  estate ;  but  the  circuit  court  of 
the  county,  or  the  circuit  or  corporation  court  of 
the  corporation  wherein  she  resides,  or  the  said 
real  estate,  or  any  part  thereof  is,  or  the  judge 
of  the  said  court  in  vacation,  shall,  on  the  petition 
of  her  next  friend  commit  her  said  estate  to  a  re- 
ceiver, who  shall  give  bond  before  the  court  or 
judge,  and  shall  hold  and  manage  the  said  estate, 
and  pay  out  the  rents,  issues,  profits,  and  income 


32  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

thereof  to  her  use  under  the  direction  of  the 
court,  or  apply  the  estate,  or  any  part  thereof, 
if  the  court  so  order,  to  her  use  during 
coverture,  and  while  she  is  a  minor;  and  upon  her 
attaining  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  all  such 
estates  and  the  rents,  issues,  income,  and  profits 
thereof,  not  paid  out  or  applied  as  aforesaid, 
shall  be  delivered  into  her  possession;  or,  if  she 
die  before  attaining  that  age,  the  same  shall  be 
delivered  at  her  death  to  those  entitled  thereto. 

"The  seisin  requisite  for  the  husband's  curtesy 
in  the  wife's  real  estate,  committed  to  a  receiver 
shall,  for  the  purpose  of  curtesy,  be  presumed,  if 
there  could  have  been  such  seisin,  had  not  the 
real  estate  been  so  committed."  (Acts  1899-1900, 
p.  1240.) 

Real  estate  belonging  to  a  married  woman  who 
is  a  minor  may  be  sold  by  a  court.  Neither  the 
approbation  of  her  husband  nor  of  her  father  is 
required.  The  court  is  presumed  to  take  much 
more  interest  in  her  welfare,  and  to  guard  care- 
fully the  proceeds  of  the  sale  from  these  danger- 
ous characters  by  transferring  it  to  the  custody 
of  another  receivef.  (Section  2292  A;  Acts 
1891-2,  p.  391.) 

If  the  wife  die  intestate,  her  personal  property 
all  passes  to  her  husband.  (Section  2557.) 

If  they  have  had  no  child  born  alive,  her  hus- 
band has  no  interest  in  her  real  estate.  If  he 
have  put  the  house  in  which  they  lived  in  his 
wife's  name,  and  she  die  intestate,  he  must  walk 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  33 

out  of  the  house  the  day  after  the  funeral,  and  the 
property  which  he  was  so  carefully  guarding 
against  the  claims  of  his  creditors  will  pass  in  fee 
simple  to  his  wife's  seventeenth  cousin  possibly, 
or  to  someone  else  whom  he  has  never  seen,  this 
being  the  rule  applying  to  all  her  property  from 
whomsoever  derived.  (Section  2548.) 

If  they  have  had  a  child  born  alive,  and  she 
die  intestate,  the  husband  may  still  hold  it,  as 
tenant  by  the  curtesy,  for  the  balance  of  his  life. 
His  wife's  heirs  will  then  own  the  property. 
(Section  2293.) 

This  would  also  be  the  case  if  there  had  been 
a  child  who  inherited  the  property  from  his 
mother.  At  her  death  it  would  descend  to  the 
child,  subject  to  the  curtesy  of  the  husband;  and 
at  the  child's  death,  if  still  an  infant,  it  would, 
still,  subject  to  the  husband's  curtesy,  pass  to  the 
maternal  relations  of  the  child,  leaving  his  father 
only  a  life  interest.  (Section  2556.) 

These  two  provisions, — the  one  allowing  the 
husband  to  stand  as  the  sole  distributee  of  his 
wife's  personal  property,  that  is,  as  to  such  per- 
sonal property  as  she  may  not  have  given  away  to 
some  one  else  by  her  will ;  and  the  other,  the  right, 
contingent  upon  a  child's  having  been  born  alive 
during  the  coverture,  for  him  to  hold  for  his  life 
any  real  estate  she  may  have  owned  during  the 
coverture,  whether  willed  away  by  her  or  not, — 
are  about  all  that  is  now  left  the  husband  of  his 
interest  as  such  in  his  wife's  property.  On  the 


34  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

whole,  they  do  not  amount  to  any  more  than  the 
wife  gains  in  his  property.  So,  taking  all  the 
cases  together,  we  may  say  that  the  husband  gains 
nothing  financially  by  marriage. 

We  must  make,  however,  one  exception  to  this 
broad  statement:  he  is  still  legally  entitled  to  his 
wife's  affections.  If  any  one  alienate  these  from 
him,  he  can  sue  him  for  damages;  and  anything 
collected  in  such  a  suit  will  be  his  individual  prop- 
erty. 

What  a  strange  oversight  on  the  part  of  the 
Legislature  to  let  this  rule  stand!  It  mars  the 
beautiful  symmetry  of  the  plan  which  was  being 
so  successfully  worked  out, — that  of  depriving 
the  husband  of  everything.  The  idea  of  damages 
resulting  from  a  matter  due  to  the  very  marriage 
itself,  not  being  secured  to  the  wife,  even  if  it 
were  the  injury  that  the  husband  had  sustained 
by  the  alienation  of  his  wife's  affections!  How 
could  he  ever  have  become  entitled  to  the  dam- 
ages but  for  her  marriage  with  him;  and  as  she 
was  the  cause  of  the  damages  having  arisen  why 
should  they  not  belong  to  her  instead  of  to  him? 


CHAPTER  III 

One  of  the  strangest  things  and  worst  conse- 
quences about  our  system  of  the  separate  property 
of  married  women  has  been  the  way  many  men  have 
tried  to  use  it  in  order  to  put  their  money  beyond 
the  reach  of  their  creditors, — "In  case  anything 
happened  to  them,"  as  they  express  it.  It  is  now 
not  only  a  question  of  giving  to  men  a  proper 
interest  in,  and  assistance  from,  the  property  of 
their  wives,  but  it  is  high  time  for  men  to  be 
stopped  from  putting  all  their  own  property  in 
their  wives5  names.  The  ultimate  effect  of  this 
policy  appears  to  be  that  all  the  property  in  the 
State  will  eventually  stand  in  the  names  of  women, 
and  the  men  will  be  brought  into  unbecoming  de- 
pendence upon  them  in  that  regard.  If  protection 
of  property  from  the  claims  of  creditors  be 
proper,  which  we  do  not  admit,  it  would  be  bet- 
ter to  let  a  man  entail  his  estate  in  a  manly  and 
straightforward  manner,  as  was  formerly  done, 
instead  of  holding  it  under  the  trusteeship  of  his 
wife.  This  puts  him  not  only  in  a  fraudulent, 
but  in  a  contemptible  position,  if  such  were  his 
object. 

A  beautiful  case  illustrating  the  real  security 
husbands  get  by  putting  their  property  in  their 
wives'  names  is  presented  to  us  in  this  case,  which 
we  give  as  it  was  reported  in  the  Firginian-Pilot, 

35 


3  6  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  on  August  2,  1905,  omitting 
names  only: 

"After  having  worked  for  many  years  to  ac- 
cumulate a  considerable  amount  of  property, 
which  he  transferred  to  his  wife  as  fast  as  he  got 
it,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  he  wished  to  protect 
her  from  the  expense  of  litigation  after  his  death 
in  case  relatives  should  make  any  contest,  and 
then  to  find  that  the  wife  had  bequeathed  it  all  to 
outsiders  by  a  will  of  which  he  knew  nothing,  is 
the  predicament  Mr.  X.,  of  Norfolk,  finds  him- 
self in. 

"Mr.  and  Mrs.  X.  had  no  children,  and  in  1883 
he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  as  Mrs.  X.  had 
helped  him  by  wifely  counsel  and  sympathy  to  get 
his  money,  he  should  take  some  steps  to  save  her 
from  annoyance  from  relatives  in  the  event  of  his 
death  before  hers.  Their  life  had  been  one  long 
honeymoon,  and  it  was  his  wish  that  after  his 
death  Mrs.  X  should  live  in  the  same  comfort 
and  ease  that  she  had  done  since  he  had  become 
wealthy  again.  To  make  sure  of  this  he  trans- 
ferred to  her  name  property  to  the  amount  of 
$27,000,  and  afterward  bought  for  her  a  fine 
home  at  the  corner  of  X  Avenue  and  V  Street, 
which  stands  in  the  center  of  a  spacious  lawn,  and 
is  one  of  the  most  attractive  places  in  Norfolk. 

"When  he  had  completed  this  home  in  every 
detail  he  deeded  it  to  her  in  the  same  manner 
that  he  had  done  the  other  property.  In  return 
Mrs.  X.  made  a  will  whereby  all  the  property 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  37 

which  had  been  given  her  by  her  husband  was 
left  to  him  in  fee  simple,  in  case  she  should  die 
first. 

aSome  years  ago  Mr.  and  Mrs.  X.  made  the 
acquaintance  of  a  Mrs.  Y.,  who  is  the  widow  of 
—  Y.,  a  brother  of  the  great  manufacturer.  The 
acquaintance  soon  ripened  into  a  close  friendship, 
and  Mrs.  Y.  was  often  the  guest  of  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
X.  at  their  Norfolk  home.  The  old  Confederate 
soldier  and  his  wife  also  conceived  a  strong  friend- 
ship for  the  Rev.  Dr.  C.,  pastor  of  the  

Church,  of  this  city.  There  was  never  a  word 
said  about  devising  any  of  the  property  to  these 
two  persons,  and  no  such  thing  was  ever  thought 
of  for  a  moment  by  Mr.  X. 

"Mrs.  X.  died  two  weeks  ago,  and  Mrs.  Y., 
who  was  in  Chicago,  heard  of  it  and  came  to 
Norfolk  at  once  and  went  to  see  Mr.  X.  She 
was  received  with  the  same  open-handed,  whole- 
hearted hospitality  that  had  been  accorded  her 
during  Mrs.  X.'s  lifetime.  This  woman  had  not 
been  in  the  house  many  minutes  before  she  had 
astounded  Mr.  X.  with  the  information  that  his 
wife  had  made  a  will  in  1893  (ten  years  after  the 
previous  will  had  been  made)  by  which  that  gen- 
tleman had  been  left  a  life  interest  in  the  property 
he  had  transferred  to  his  wife,  and  that  at  his 
death  a  life  interest  went  to  Mrs.  Y.,  with  a 
residuary  interest  to  Mrs.  Y.'s  son.  Mrs.  Y. 
told  Mr.  X.  of  a  clause  in  the  will  which  gave 
that  lady  the  power  to  dispose  of  the  property  by 


38  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

will  in  any  manner  she  wished  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  a  residuary  interest  had  been  given  to 
young  Y. 

"He  was  also  informed  that  the  beautiful  home 
in  which  they  had  lived  had  been  given  at  once 
to  Dr.  C.,  the  X.'s  pastor.  Mr.  X.  was  stunned 
by  the  news  for  an  instant,  and  then  he  ordered 
Mrs.  Y.  to  leave  his  house  forthwith,  and  she  lost 
no  time  in  doing  so. 

"The  old  soldier  took  the  will  of  1883  to  the 
Clerk's  office  and  filed  it  with  Clerk  D.,  who  has 
locked  it  up  in  his  safe  and  is  holding  it  for  safe- 
keeping. The  husband  has  also  taken  steps  to 
prevent  the  later  will  from;  being  probated,  and  if 
he  fails  in  this,  he  will  cause  an  issue  devisavit 
vel  non  to  be  raised,  and  fight  it  along  that  line. 

"Mr.  X.  said  yesterday  that  he  and  his  wife  had 
had  a  beautiful  home  life  and  their  relations  had 
always  been  of  the  most  loving  kind,  and  he  did 
not  believe  that  she  had  ever  signed  such  a  will. 
He  has  read  a  copy  of  the  Y.  will,  but  has  not 
seen  the  original.  He  will  make  every  effort  to 
save  the  property  for  himself,  because  he  does  not 
believe  for  one  instant  that  Mrs.  X.  ever  intended 
to  deprive  him  of  it." 

There  you  are.  The  husband  and  the  acquirer 
of  the  property,  to  be  compelled  to  walk  out  of 
his  own  house  at  once,  and  lose  the  fee  simple  title 
to  all  the  rest.  And  this  is  just  the  situation  any 
man  is  likely  to  find  himself  in  who  does  this  sort 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  39 

of  thing.  And  we  know  another  case,  even  sad- 
der than  this,  when  the  wife  herself  kept  her  hus- 
band out  of  property  which  he,  in  a  moment  of 
weakness  and  alarm,  transferred  to  her. 

A  man's  only  protection,  in  regard  to  real 
estate,  the  title  to  which  stands  in  his  wife's  name, 
is  the  provision  in  Section  2286  A  that  the  hus- 
band shall  not  be  deprived  of  his  contingent  right 
of  curtesy  by  the  sole  act  of  his  wife;  which 
means  that  no  deed  signed  only  by  her,  without 
him,  shall  deprive  him  of  his  contingent  right  to 
a  life  interest  in  the  same  as  tenant  by  the  curtesy, 
which  becomes  a  legal  estate  in  possession  only 
if  they  have  children  born  alive,  and  he  survive 
her.  Even  this  the  Legislature  may  sweep  away 
at  any  time.  As  to  personal  property,  such  as 
stocks,  bonds,  money,  and  so  forth,  he  has  no 
protection.  By  her  sole  act  his  wife  may  dispose 
of  this  at  any  time,  as  she  may  also  dispose  of  the 
ultimate  fee  simple  title  and  immediate  possession 
of  the  house  the  husband  may  have  put  in  her 
name,  by  her  sole  deed,  or,  to  his  great  and  ever- 
lasting consternation  and  ruin,  by  a  will  of  which 
he  knew  nothing  until  her  death,  when  it  would 
be  too  late  to  alter  it. 

A  joke  is  even  made  of  putting  property  in  the 
wife's  name:  "I  hear,  Mike,"  said  Pat,  uthat 
Flinn  had  his  appendix  taken  from  him."  "Serves 
him  just  right,"  said  Mike,  "for  not  putting  it  in 
his  wife's  name." 

If  this  sort  of  thing  continue  for  a  few  more 


40  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

generations,  nearly  all  the  property  in  Virginia 
will  belong  to  women.  The  men,  for  alleged 
affection,  but  more  generally  for  supposed  protec- 
tion, adopt  this  policy  often  while  living.  The 
women,  when  they  come  to  make  their  wills,  have 
a  decided  preference  for  leaving  their  property 
to  their  daughters,  for  the  unintended  benefit  of 
their  sons-in-law,  instead  of  to  their  sons,  for 
the  benefit  of  their  daughters-in-law.  The  writer 
has  even  seen  a  will  in  which  the  property  is  left 
by  a  woman  to  her  daughter-in-law,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  her  son.  The  sons  are  held  to  be  able, 
of  course,  to  make  all  the  money  they  need;  let 
them  work.  Such  property  as  is  in  the  family  is, 
therefore,  to  devolve  upon  the  daughters.  The 
men  also,  under  the  influence  of  their  wives  pre- 
sumably, often  will  the  best  of  their  property  to 
their  daughters  instead  of  to  their  sons.  It  does 
not  require  much  effort  of  imagination  to  see  what 
will  be  the  final  result  if  this  process  be  allowed 
to  go  on  indefinitely.  The  men  of  the  State  may 
ultimately  find  themselves  not  only  lowered  in  dig- 
nity, but  placed  in  financial  dependence  upon  the 
women;  and  then,  what? 

"She  sifted  the  meal,  she  gimme  the  huss; 

She  baked  the  bread,  she  gimme  the  crus' ; 
She  biled  the  meat,  she  gimme  the  bone; 

She  gimme  a  kick  and  sent  me  home !" 

Stripped  of  the  legal  title  to  their  property, 
and  the  power  which  goes  with  it,  men  need  not 
be  surprised  if  they  find  themselves  treated  with 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  41 

the  same  consideration  that  King  Lear  is  repre- 
sented as  having  received  at  the  hands  of  his 
daughters, — Goneril  and  Regan. 

Now,  if  in  a  moment  of  weakness,  or  of  ignor- 
ance, you  have  put  your  property  in  your  wife's 
name,  the  sooner  you  have  it  reconveyed  to  you, 
the  better  for  you.  Your  wife  may  die  to-mor- 
row, and  you  may  find  yourself  subordinated  in 
regard  to  your  property  to  the  infant  over  there 
in  the  cradle,  or  to  relatives  of  your  wife,  whom 
possibly  you  never  saw  nor  heard  of. 

For  fear  that  the  husbands  of  Virginia  might 
not  be  sufficiently  excluded  from  benefit  in  their 
wives'  property,  to  the  satisfaction  of  everybody, 
it  is  carefully  provided  that  equitable  separate 
estates  on  the  part  of  the  wife  may  also  still  be 
created,  in  which  case  a  trustee  will  be  interposed 
between  the  husband  and  his  wife.  This  certainly 
has  a  tendency  to  make  the  matrimonial  relation 
particularly  harmonious  and  attractive!  (Section 
2294.) 

As  a  part  of  the  plan  to  reduce  to  nothing  the 
interest  which  a  husband  has  in  his  wife's  prop- 
erty, and  to  compel  him  to  stay  with  her,  it  is  pro- 
vided by  Section  2296  that:  "If  a  husband  wil- 
fully deserts  or  abandons  his  wife,  and  such  de- 
sertion or  abandonment  continues  until  her  death, 
he  shall  be  barred  of  all  interest  in  her  estate  as 
tenant  by  the  curtesy,  distributee,  or  otherwise." 
(Acts  1899-1900,  p.  1240.) 

That  is,  for  instance,  if  relations  should  become 


42  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

a  little  strained  between  them,  or  even  only  ap- 
peared to  be  so  to  outsiders,  and  the  husband, 
after  putting  all  his  property  in  his  wife's  name, 
should  leave  town  for  a  few  days,  and  his  wife 
should  die  of  heart  disease,  be  run  over  by  a  car, 
or  otherwise  suddenly  depart  this  life  during  his 
absence,  he  is  excluded  from  all  interest  in  the 
property.  Even  if  she  have  made  a  will  in  his 
favor,  it  all  goes  for  naught,  and  the  property, 
real  and  personal,  is  to  go  to  the  distant  cousin 
of  the  wife,  or  to  whomever  be  her  heir,  legatee, 
or  devisee. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  forfeiture  of  all 
interest  in  the  wife's  estate  is  not  dependent  upon 
her  being  in  needy  circumstances,  nor  does  it  re- 
gard the  source  from  which  her  property  was  de- 
rived, nor  the  length  nor  cause  of  the  absence,  and 
all  these  forfeitures  are  to  be  asserted  by  others 
who  would  have  a  powerful  financial  reason  for 
making  it  appear  that  the  case  contemplated  by 
the  statute  had  arisen,  so  that  they  could  get  what 
should  belong  to  the  husband.  This  statute  is 
about  on  a  par  with  Section  2556,  in  disturbing 
the  peace  of  mind  of  those  affectionate  and 
cautious  men  who  are  so  fond  of  putting  their 
property  in  their  wives'  names.  They  should  com- 
mit both  to  memory,  and  say  them  over  to  them- 
selves at  least  once  a  day,  to  make  sure  that  they 
really  know  these  rules  of  law,  and  to  make  them- 
selves enjoy  all  the  more  the  great  security  which 
they  think  they  possess  by  this  scheme. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Worse  than  this,  though,  is  the  provision  passed 
in  the  year  of  Grace,  1904,  by  which  husbands  may 
not  only  be  fined  by  loss  of  all  financial  interest 
in  their  wives'  property,  but  flung  into  jail  for 
deserting  them.  This  statute  we  consider  such  a 
model  of  bad  legislation  that  it  should  be  given 
at  length  in  the  very  words  of  the  Legislature : 

"Any  person  (that  is  any  husband  or  father) 
who  shall,  without  just  cause,  desert  or  wilfully 
neglect  to  provide  for  the  support  of  his  wife  or 
minor  children,  in  destitute  or  necessitous  circum- 
stances, shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  jail,  not 
exceeding  one  year;  provided  that  before  the  trial 
(with  the  consent  of  the  defendant)  or  after  con- 
viction, instead  of  imposing  the  punishment  here- 
inbefore provided,  or  in  addition  thereto,  the 
court  in  its  discretion,  having  regard  to  the  cir- 
cumstances and  financial  ability  of  the  defendant, 
shall  have  the  power  to  enter  an  order,  which 
shall  be  subject  to  change  by  it  from  time  to  time 
as  the  circumstances  may  require,  directing  the  de- 
fendant to  pay  a  certain  sum  weekly  or  monthly 
for  the  space  of  one  year  to  the  wife  or  to  the 
custodian  of  the  minor,  and  to  release  the  defend- 

43 


44  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ant  from  custody  on  probation  for  the  space  of 
one  year  upon  his  entering  into  a  recognizance, 
with  or  without  sureties,  in  such  sum  as  the  court 
shall  direct.  The  condition  of  the  recognizance 
shall  be  such  that  if  the  defendant  shall  make  his 
personal  appearance  at  court  whenever  ordered 
to  do  so  within  the  year,  and  shall  further  comply 
with  the  terms  of  the  order,  or  of  any  subsequent 
modification  thereof,  then  the  recognizance  shall 
be  void,  otherwise  to  remain  in  full  force  and 
effect.  If  the  court  be  satisfied  by  information 
and  due  proof  under  oath  at  any  time  during  the 
year  that  the  defendant  has  violated  the  terms  of 
such  order,  it  may  forthwith  proceed  to  the  trial 
of  the  defendant  under  the  original  indictment,  or 
sentence  him  under  the  original  conviction,  as  the 
case  may  be.  In  the  case  of  forfeiture  of  a  recog- 
nizance and  enforcement  hereof  by  execution,  the 
sum  recovered  may,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court, 
be  paid  in  whole  or  in  part  to  the  wife  or  to 
the  custodian  of  the  minor.  The  corporation  or 
hustings  courts  of  the  cities  and  the  circuit  courts 
of  the  counties,  respectively,  shall  have  exclusive 
original  jurisdiction  of  all  prosecutions  and  pro- 
ceedings under  this  Act."  (Acts  1904,  p.  208.) 

This  enactment  is  the  companion  piece  and  fore- 
runner of  the  more  recent  act  of  legislation,  noted 
later  in  a  chapter  in  Part  II  on  "Parent  and 
Child,"  putting  the  parent  in  jail  for  not  supplying 
the  child  with  food,  and  so  on.  (Acts  1910,  p. 
570-) 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  45 

These  acts  are  nothing  more  or  less  than  insults 
to  the  men  of  a  race  which,  since  the  dawn  of 
its  history,  has  supported  its  wives  and  its  children 
to  the  best  of  its  ability.  Aimed  presumably  at  a 
few  real  offenders,  who  may  be  morally  repre- 
hensible for  their  neglect  or  failure  to  discharge 
their  obligations  to  their  families,  the  inevitable 
result  of  this  legislation  is  to  degrade  the  relation 
of  husband  and  father  to  the  lowest  level  of 
dignity  and  authority  which  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  Are  the  men  of  Virginia,  and  of  other 
States  of  the  American  Union,  going  to  submit 
indefinitely  to,  or  extend,  a  system  which  degrades 
them  in  their  family  relations  to  a  condition  lower 
than  that  occupied  by  any  other  men  in  the  world? 
and  which  places  the  policeman,  the  sheriff,  and 
the  jailer  in  their  family  circle,  ready,  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  wife,  on  the  charge  of  non-support, 
to  arrest  and  imprison  the  head  of  the  family? 
This  legislation  leaves  no  opportunity  for  the  hus- 
band and  father  to  discharge  these  obligations  be- 
cause it  is  his  natural  right  and  duty  to  do  so,  and 
because  it  is  his  pleasure  to  do  so,  but  he  now  dis- 
charges them,  if  for  no  higher  reason,  because 
he  must  do  so.  He  must  do  so,  or  go  to  jail. 
The  courts  are  here  again  made  the  custodians  and 
regulators  of  all  the  family  affairs.  Over  the  head 
of  all  husbands  and  fathers  hangs  the  sword  of 
Damocles,  in  the  powers  of  these  courts,  so  ig- 
nominiously  provided  against  the  men  of  the  State 
by  the  Legislature.  This  policy  appears  to  be 


46  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

so  humiliating  to  the  men  of  our  race,  the  whole 
conception  so  subversive  of  the  proper  relation 
of  husband  and  wife,  and  of  father  and  child, 
that  it  should  be  reversed  at  once,  before  it  has 
had  time  to  ruin  the  domestic  relations  beyond  the 
hope  of  recall. 

It  seems  that  the  State  of  New  Jersey  has  a 
statute  similar  to  ours,  or  more  probably,  with  our 
zeal  for  legislative  plagiarism,  we  may  have  simply 
copied  theirs.  An  edifying  spectacle  is  presented 
in  the  following  case,  which  was  recorded  by  the 
New  York  World,  on  August  29,  1905,  coming 
under  this  statute.  The  newspaper  account  of  it 
was  as  follows: 

"Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  August  29. — What  dispo- 
sition A.  B.  makes  of  five  cents  a  week  is  the 
question  that  is  agitating  Jersey  City.  He  admits 
that  he  spends  it,  and  his  wife,  who  had  him  ar- 
rested for  non-support,  agrees  with  him;  but  what 
Jersey  City  desires  to  know  is  just  how  B.  expends 
his  portion  of  the  money  for  which  he  works. 

"Over  the  back  fences,  where  the  women  swap 
experiences  and  tell  of  the  home-comings  of  the 
head  of  the  house,  with  more  than  a  white  man's 
burden  that  cost  a  week's  salary,  and  discuss  the 
prodigality  of  man,  B.  is  an  object  of  curiosity. 

"Something  in  B.'s  manner  impressed  Mrs.  B.  a 

few  days  ago  that  he  was  going  to  balk  at  giving 

up  $32.40  on  his  pay-day,  so  she  left  her  home 

at  415  H.  Street,  and  obtained  a  warrant  for  his 

arrest  for  non-support. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  -  47 

"Yesterday  B.  was  dragged  to  court  before 
Justice  H. 

'You  are  charged  with  non-support/  said  the 
justice. 

"  'It  is  untrue,  your  honor.  I  make  $65  a 
month,  and  I  get  paid  every  two  weeks,  and  I 
give  my  wife  $32.40,  and  keep  ten  cents  for  my- 
self.' 

"Is  that  true?'  asked  the  justice. 
'Yes,'  said  the  wife.   'You  see,  my  husband 
was  paid  last  Saturday  and  I  was  afraid  he  would 
not  give  me  my  share  of  the  money,  and  so  I  had 
a  warrant  issued  for  him  on  Friday.' 

'  'Did  he  give  it  to  you?'  inquired  the  justice. 

"Oh,  yes;  but  I  forgot  to  tell  the  officer  to 
withdraw  the  warrant,  and  so  it  was  served,'  re- 
plied the  wife." 

As  severely  as  the  record  shows  that  Job  was 
tried,  he  was  never  called  upon  to  bear  anything 
quite  so  exasperating  as  this.  Who  could  be  much 
surprised  if  he  heard  that  the  next  act  in  that 
drama  were  a  divorce,  a  suicide,  or  even  a  mur- 
der? These  crimes  have  been  often  committed 
under  less  provocation. 

Here  is  another  illustration  of  the  working  of 
this  kind  of  legislation: 

"Philadelphia,  Pa.,  December  14,  1911. — Mrs. 
C.,  forty-five  years  old,  was  told  she  had  no  stand- 
ing in  court  after  she  had  caused  the  arrest  of  her 
husband,  whom  she  left  twenty-four  years  ago  on  a 


48  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

charge  of  desertion  and  non-support.  Husband 
and  wife  had  not  seen  each  other  since  except 
once,  shortly  after  the  separation,  when  C.  was 
arrested  on  the  complaint  of  his  wife  on  a  similar 
charge.  In  that  case  it  was  proved  the  wife  was 
in  the  wrong. 

"Since  the  desertion  C.  has  prospered.  When  he 
faced  his  wife  he  had  to  look  at  her  several  times 
before  he  recognized  her." 

And  right  here  at  home  we  have : 

"Y.  Z.  pleaded  guilty  yesterday  in  the  Norfolk 
County  Circuit  Court  to  a  charge  of  deserting  his 
wife.  A  verdict  of  six  months  in  the  county  jail 
was  returned  by  the  jury." 

"The    case    of    B.,    charged    with    desertion, 
was  called  yesterday  in  the  Norfolk  County  Cir- 
cuit Court,  but  was  continued.    B.  is  a  fugitive." 
j 

It  is  likely  that  others  will  do  well  to  follow  B.'s 
example,  for  not  long  after  his  hejira  the  follow- 
ing program  for  establishing  domestic  peace  and 
happiness  was  promulgated: 

uAt  the  meeting  of  those  interested  in  the  work- 
ings of  the  Juvenile  and  Domestic  Court,  held  yes- 
terday in  the  Police  Court,  Justice  B.  signified  his 
intention  of  making  it  exceedingly  warm  for  the 
wife-deserters  and  those  who  fail  to  support  their 
families,  and  are  brought  before  him. 

"Instead  of  fining  them  as  has  been  the  case  in 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  49 

most  instances  heretofore,  those  who  merit  pun- 
ishment will  be  sent  to  jail  for  two  or  three  days, 
or  for  longer  sentences  in  the  more  aggravated 
cases.  In  a  great  many  instances  after  a  man  has 
been  fined  for  non-support,  his  wife,  being  too 
loyal  to  him  to  let  him  go  to  jail,  has  had  to  pay 
his  fine  when  she  really  needed  the  money  badly 
for  household  purposes,  and  it  is  thought  that  the 
new  method  of  jailing  the  offenders  will  settle  the 
question  more  satisfactorily. 

"There  were  quite  a  large  number  of  ministers 
of  both  the  white  and  the  colored  churches  present 
at  yesterday's  meeting,  together  with  representa- 
tives from  various  organizations  interested  in  the 
juvenile  and  domestic  situation,  and  all  pledged 
their  support  to  the  magistrate  in  helping  to  pre- 
vent a  large  number  of  children  being  brought 
into  court. 

"It  was  decided  that  in  each  instance  where 
children  enter  into  the  cases  an  investigation  into 
the  home-life  of  the  youngsters  will  be  made ;  and 
where  it  is  found  that  the  influence  surrounding 
the  bringing  up  of  the  child  is  such  that  would  tend 
to  demoralize  it,  the  ^parent  will  be  held  respons- 
ible and  be  made  to  bear  the  punishment  for  the 
child's  wrong-doing." 

The  wives  were  "too  loyal"  to  their  husbands ! 
So  the  State  drives  a  wedge  between  them,  and 
holds  that  "the  method  of  jailing  the  offenders 
will  settle  the  question  more  satisfactorily." 

We  will  suppose  that  the  husband  has  been  duly 


50  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"jailed,"  and,  after  a  certain  time,  comes  out. 
Where  will  he  go?  Dinner-time  comes,  and  we 
will  stretch  our  imagination  to  the  point  of  seeing 
the  husband  overcome  his  repugnance  to  ever 
entering  the  house,  or  seeing  his  wife  again,  and 
behold  him  sitting  down  at  table  with  his  family. 
Across  the  board  sits  his  wife,  she  who  has  had 
him  put  in  jail.  She  faces  him,  her  mind  full  of 
what  she  has  done,  his  mind  full  of  what  she 
has  done.  What  topic  of  conversation  could  be 
found  but  the  one  which  was  boiling  in  the  heart 
of  each? 

Are  not  such  situations  as  this  among  those 
dreadful  antecedents  of  the  awful  tragedies  which 
we  read  of  so  often,  where  some  man,  exasper- 
ated beyond  the  limit  of  endurance,  slaughters  his 
wife  and  his  children,  and  then  kills  himself  over 
their  dead  bodies? 

Far  be  it  from  the  writer  to  be  understood  as 
counseling  or  condoning  any  such  course.  The 
trials  of  the  husband  should  be  endured  with  forti- 
tude, and  all  the  teachings  of  morality,  virtue,  and 
religion  unite  to  lead  him  to  repentance  and  a 
better  course  of  life.  We  are  here  merely  ana- 
lyzing the  situation,  and  probing  into  the  causes  of 
the  awful  scenes  which  are  related  to  us  so  often. 
And  here,  let  us  say,  that  the  real  cause, — do- 
mestic anarchy, — is  never  given  in  the  newspaper 
accounts.  All  is  attributed  to  sudden  fits  of  men- 
tal aberration.  Persons  never  regarded  in  the 
least  as  insane  are  always  so  reported  when  these 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  51 

tragedies  occur.  The  policy  which  has  been  adopted 
by  society  in  regard  to  these  domestic  matters 
seems,  for  the  time  being,  to  blind  the  eyes  of 
the  public  to  the  real  cause,  or  to  make  it  un- 
willing to  face  the  ghastly  fact  that  this  modern 
movement  is  fatally  wrong,  and  is  proving  itself 
to  be  a  dreadful  failure. 

It  would  seem  that  the  indefiniteness  of  the 
word  "support"  would  be  of  itself  a  sufficient  ob- 
jection to  this  legislation.  What  is  a  support? 
How  much  money  must  the  husband  earn,  and 
use  in  the  support  of  his  family,  not  to  render 
himself  likely  to  be  put  in  jail  on  the  ground  of 
wilfully  neglecting  to  provide  for  the  support  of 
his  wife  or  minor  children?  Poor  people  are  ac- 
customed to  live  on  incomes  which  richer  persons 
would  deem  wholly  insufficient.  Would  not  the 
daughter  of  a  rich  family  feel  that  she  had  the 
right  to  put  her  husband  in  jail  if  he  only  sup- 
plied the  sums  which  poorer  people  were  accus- 
tomed to  live  on,  even  if  this  were  the  best  that 
he  could  do?  Why  would  not  a  servant  girl 
have  a  right  to  put  her  husband  in  jail  for  not 
supporting  her  in  the  style  her  mistress  lives  in? 
Why  should  not  every  wife,  ultimately,  have  the 
right  to  demand  that  she  be  supported  in  the  best 
style  known  in  that  community?  And  what  is 
the  reason  she  is  not  so  supported  but  the  fact 
that  her  worthless  husband  does  not  make  as 
much  money  as  somebody  else's  husband  makes? 
And  such  being  the  case,  why  should  not  all  the 


52  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

unfortunate,  the  incapable,  and  the  weak  hus- 
bands be  put  in  jail  together  for  not  being  rich, 
strong,  and  successful?  It  is  their  fault  of  course, 
and  theirs  only,  that  their  families  do  not  live  just 
as  well  as  anybody  else.  What  a  fruitful  source 
of  dissatisfaction  as  to  the  state  of  life  in  which 
their  lots  are  cast  is  here  opened  up !  The  par- 
ties married  "for  better  for  worse,  for  richer  for 
poorer."  But  if  it  turned  out  that  their  fate  is 
worse  and  poorer,  who  is  to  blame  but  the  hus- 
band? and  if  he  be  to  blame,  why  not  have  him 
punished? 

Then  again,  what  are  the  "just  causes"  which 
will  sanction  the  desertion  or  wilful  neglect  to 
provide  for  the  support  of  one's  wife  or  minor 
children  in  destitute  or  necessitous  circumstances? 
An  enumeration  of  these  would  be  truly  a  diffi- 
cult task.  We  look  for  them  in  the  act,  but  they 
are  not  to  be  found. 

Not  satisfied  with  the  legislation  already  in 
force,  which  is  open  to  the  just  criticism  above 
made,  the  Legislature  of  1912  adds  the  follow- 
ing provision,  amending  a  previous  enactment, 
making  it  apply  to  all  cities  having  over  fifteen 
thousand  inhabitants : 

"It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  chief  of  police  or 
the  probation  officer  hereinafter  provided  for  in 
any  city  of  the  State  having  fifteen  thousand  in- 
habitants and  over,  when  in  his  opinion  a  person 
in  his  jurisdiction  is  a  confirmed  drunkard,  or  is 
guilty  of  failure  to  support  his  family,  to  admon- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  53 

ish  said  person;  and  if,  after  said  admonition, 
there  is  not  amendment,  to  bring  such  person  be- 
fore the  court  charged  with  being  an  habitual 
drunkard,  or  with  failing  to  support  his  family, 
as  the  case  may  be. 

"That  whenever  any  person  is  brought  before 
the  judge  of  any  court  or  any  police  justice  in 
any  city  of  this  State,  charged  with  being  an  ha- 
bitual drunkard,  or  with  failing  to  support  his 
wife  or  children,  and  satisfactory  evidence  is  pro- 
duced that  such  person  is  guilty  of  the  offense 
charged,  or  is  such  person  as  above  described, 
such  judge  or  police  justice  may,  in  his  discre- 
tion, continue  the  case  for  final  determination 
to  some  later  day,  to  be  fixed  by  him,  and  bail 
the  accused  for  his  appearance  on  such  day,  with 
or  without  security,  and  the  said  judge  or  police 
justice  may  commit  the  said  person  to  the  super- 
vision of  the  chief  of  police  or  of  an  officer  known 
as  probation  officer  whose  appointment  is  here- 
inafter provided  for,  under  such  directions,  rules, 
and  regulations  as  the  said  judge  or  police  justice 
may  give,  direct,  and  prescribe. 

"The  said  judge  or  police  justice  of  any  city 
in  this  State  may,  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
State  board  of  charities  and  corrections,  designate 
some  discreet  and  proper  person,  either  constable 
or  police  officer  of  said  city,  as  he  may  think 
proper,  to  be  known  as  the  probation  officer  of 
such  city.  The  compensation  of  said  probation 
officer  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  city  council,  and 


54  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

in  all  cases  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of 
the  city  for  which  he  is  appointed.  Where  no 
such  appointment  is  made,  the  chief  of  police  shall 
be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  and  required 
to  act  as  said  probation  officer. 

"The  said  probation  officer  shall  ascertain  the 
name  and  address  and  such  facts  in  relation  to  the 
antecedent  history  and  environment  of  the  person 
or  persons  committed  to  'his  charge  as  may  enable 
him  to  determine  what  corrective  measures  will  be 
proper  in  the  case,  and  shall  exercise  a  constant 
supervision  over  the  conduct  of  such  person  or 
persons,  and  make  report  to  the  judge  or  police 
justice,  whenever  he  shall  deem  it  necessary,  or  be 
required  to  do  so,  and  he  shall  use  every  effort 
to  encourage  and  stimulate  such  person  to  a  refor- 
mation. Whenever  said  chief  of  police  or  pro- 
bation officer  shall  become  satisfied  that  such  per- 
son is  violating  the  directions,  rules,  and  regula- 
tions, given  or  prescribed  by  the  judge  or  police 
justice,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  his  conduct,  said 
chief  of  police  or  probation  officer  shall  have 
authority  to  arrest  such  person  without  warrant 
and  carry  him  before  the  judge  or  police  justice 
before  whom  he  was  first  brought,  or  some  other 
judge  or  police  justice  acting  in  said  city;  and 
such  judge  or  police  justice  may,  in  his  discretion, 
declare  the  recognizance  forfeited,  or,  in  hjs  dis- 
cretion, extend  the  time  of  probation  under  like 
conditions  as  are  above  described.  Every  proba- 
£ion  officer  appointed  as  aforesaid  is  hereby  in- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  55 

vested  with  all  powers  and  authority  of  a  police 
officer  or  of  a  constable  while  in  the  discharge 
of  his  duties. 

"A  man  who,  after  having  been  placed  under 
the  probation  officer  for  non-support,  still  de- 
clines to  provide  for  his  family,  or  who  while 
under  the  probation  officer  leaves  the  city,  shall  be 
apprehended  and,  upon  conviction,  sentenced  to 
the  State  convict  road  force  until  such  time  as  he 
shall  agree  to  support  his  family,  when  he  shall 
be  returned  to  the  city,  and  placed  under  a  pro- 
bation officer  as  before.  A  man  under  the  pro- 
bation officer  as  a  drunkard  who,  after  being  so 
placed,  continues  to  drink,  shall  be  sentenced  to 
the  said  road  force,  where  he  shall  remain  until 
he  gives  evidence  satisfactory  to  the  superintend- 
ent of  the  penitentiary  and  the  sergeant  of  the 
camp  in  which  he  works  that  he  has  reformed, 
when  he  shall  be  discharged  from  the  camp,  but 
shall  continue  in  the  custody  of  the  probation 
officer  of  the  city  in  which  he  has  residence,  until 
discharged  by  the  court. 

"Drunkards  committed  to  the  convict  road 
force  shall  be  dealt  with  in  all  respects  as  other 
prisoners  except,  first,  they  shall  not,  unless  as 
punishment  for  attempt  to  escape,  foe  compelled 
to  wear  the  chain;  second,  they  shall  be  examined 
upon  their  entrance  into  the  camp  by  the  physi- 
cian, and  said  physician  shall  report  the  result  of 
said  examination  to  the  sergeant  in  charge  of  tbe 
camp,  with  the  view  of  enabling  the  said  ser- 


56  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

geant  to  give  to  the  said  drunkard  such  work 
as  will  not  do  the  said  drunkard  physical  harm. 

uln  the  event  that  the  cities  of  the  State  or 
any  of  them  should  establish  workhouses  or  city 
farms  on  which  prisoners  are  put  to  work,  per- 
sons convicted  of  non-support  or  declared  to  be 
confirmed  drunkards,  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  may  be  committed  to  said  farms  or  work- 
houses instead  of  to  the  convict  road  force. 

"In  the  event  that  the  cities  of  the  State  or 
any  of  them  should  establish  said  workhouses  or 
city  farms,  persons  addicted  to  any  drug  habit 
may  be  placed  on  probation  and  committed  to  said 
farms  intsead  of  to  the  jails. 

"All  probation  officers  shall  report  to  the  State 
board  of  charities  and  corrections.  The  form  of 
such  report  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  said  board. 

"All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  wkh  this 
act  are  'hereby  repealed."  (Acts  1912,  p.  396.) 

Under  this  enlightened  legislation  a  man  who 
fails  in  business  (or  who  from  sickness,  or  bodily 
or  mental  infirmity,  or  the  sickness  of  his  wife 
or  children,  or  from  the  loss  of  his  position,  or 
on  account  of  the  general  expense  of  living,  or 
from  any  of  the  other  casualties  of  life,  loses 
his  property,  and  is  unable  to  support  his  family) 
may,  after  having  been  placed  under  the  power 
of  this  "probation  officer,"  and  being  still  un- 
able to  do  what  is  demanded  of  him  by  this  law, 
be  condemned,  and,  loaded  with  an  iron  chain, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  57 

and  guarded  by  men  with  rifles  in  their  hands,  be 
forced  to  work  upon  the  public  roads. 

Your  life  and  liberty  are  placed  by  this  act 
in  the  hands  of  a  judge  or  police  justice,  and  of 
this  probation  officer,  possibly  some  ward  poli- 
tician, who  is  to  "determine  what  corrective  meas- 
ures will  be  proper  in  the  case," — matters  which, 
regulating  the  liberty  of  action  of  all  our  citizens 
as  they  do,  are  of  such  high  importance  that  they 
have  been  heretofore  most  carefully  guarded  by 
the  highest  constitutional  provisions,  and  regu- 
lated and  defined  in  the  clearest  way  by  the  laws 
which  were  to  be  administered  and  applied  by  a 
judge  and  jury,  sworn  to  decide  the  case  imparti- 
ally. 

Judges  are,  by  this  act,  authorized  to  com- 
mit you  to  this  officer,  or  to  the  chief  of  police, 
"under  such  directions,  rules,  and  regulations  as 
the  said  judge  or  police  justice  may  give,  direct, 
and  prescribe."  That  is,  the  judiciary  is  practi- 
cally given  powers  of  legislation,  a  matter  which 
has  been  most  carefully  restricted  to  another  co- 
ordinate branch  of  government, — the  Legislature. 
Every  offense  should  have  a  definite  description 
and  a  definite  punishment,  not  one  arbitrarily 
laid  down  by  a  judge  or  police  justice.  Such  a 
power  is  the  grossest  tyranny,  and  a  flagrant 
violation  of  our  principles  of  government. 

No  defense,  except  that  of  not  having  failed 
to  support  your  wife  or  family,  would  be  able 
to  be  set  up  against  a  prosecution  under  this  act, 


58  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

as  the  statute  makes  no  qualification,  nor  recog- 
nizes any  grounds  of  palliation.  That  it  was 
your  wife  herself  who  ruined  you,  and  spent  your 
last  dollar,  would  be  no  defense.  If,  for  any 
cause,  the  poor  wretch  be  guilty  of  "failure  to 
support  his  family,"  he  stands  condemned.  Some 
persons  are  not  able  to  support  themselves,  to 
say  nothing  of  supporting  a  family.  Some  have 
extravagant  wives. 

No  exception  is  made  even  in  the  case  of  the 
wife  or  the  children  that  have  property  of  their 
own.  They  are  not  required  to  exhaust  this  be- 
fore imprisoning  the  head  of  the  family.  If  you 
occupy  this  position,  whether  the  family  be  small 
or  large,  healthy  or  sickly,  and  fail  to  support  the 
members  of  it,  to  the  roads  you  go,  with  your 
chain  clanking  about  you.  No  age  limits  are 
recognized.  The  white-haired  father,  bowed 
down  with  years,  may  be  condemned  for  not  sup- 
porting able-bodied  members  of  his  family,  male 
and  female.  No  faithful  performance  of  cor- 
responding duties  on  their  part  to  him  is  required 
to  be  proved  before  the  wife  of  his  bosom,  or 
his  offspring,  may  cause  the  poor  man  to  be  dealt 
with  as  a  common  malefactor,  on  the  ground  that 
he  'has  failed  to  support  them.  They  may  have 
treated  him  like  a  dog.  That  makes  no  differ- 
ence. To  the  roads  he  goes. 

It  was  before  the  passage  of  this  act  even  that 
we  have  heard  sung  upon  the  stage  a  song  which 
acquires  steadily  a  deeper  and  deeper  meaning: 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  59 

"Lord!  have  mercy  on  a  married  man!" 

The  obvious  way  to  secure  this  mercy  is  for 
men,  married  and  single,  to  come  to  their  senses, 
and  repeal  these  recent  unwise  acts  of  legislation. 
So  long  as  they  remain  they  are  the  law,  and  the 
courts  will  have  to  enforce  them. 

The  record  of  the  last  Legislature  shows  that 
this  act  was  one  approved  along  with  others  that 
same  day,  which  cover  one  hundred  and  sixty 
pages  of  closely  printed  matter.  Statute  law  is 
the  most  difficult,  tiresome,  and  involved  writing 
one  is  often  called  upon  to  read.  It  is  hard  to 
see  how  all  this  mass  received  the  considera- 
tion it  deserved  at  the  hands  of  the  governor  who 
approved  it.  And  it  is  more  than  doubtful  if  it 
were  ever  given  the  consideration  anywhere  that 
it  deserved.  Yet  it  is  now  the  law;  and  will  so 
remain  until  some  one  in  the  Legislature  have  the 
courage  to  propose  its  repeal. 

It  is  no  answer  to  these  objections  to  say  that 
one's  wife,  or  the  judge,  or  the  police  justice,  or 
the  probation  officer,  or  the  chief  of  police,  would 
never  think  of  applying  this  law  in  a  way  which 
would  work  the  injustice  which  is  here  pointed  out 
as  possible.  The  liberty  of  the  citizens  of  the 
Commonwealth  ought  not  to  be  put  at  the  mercy, 
or  in  the  discretionary  power,  of  any  one.  Under 
this  law  every  unfortunate  'husband  or  father 
enjoys  his  liberty,  not  under  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  land,  but  under  the  sufferance  of  his 
wife  and  the  officers  enumerated.  When  they 


60  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

think  he  should  go  in  chains  to  work  on  the  pub- 
lic roads,  he  must  go.  A  more  humiliating  posi- 
tion it  would  be  hard  to  imagine  for  the  men  of  a 
free  and  powerful  Commonwealth  to  occupy. 
Under  this  system  a  man's  wife  may  become,  not 
the  object  of  his  love  and  attention,  but  of  terror. 

Under  this  statute  the  following  case  arose 
a  few  days  ago  in  this  city;  and  was  partly  thus 
reported  in  the  daily  paper : 

"That  a  quarrel  between  husband  and  wife  does 
not  justify  the  man  in  deserting  his  home  and 
failing  to  provide  for  the  support  of  his  wife 
was  clearly  defined  by  Judge  A.  R.  H.  in  the 
Corporation  Court  yesterday. 

UX.  was  on  trial  for  wife  desertion,  when  this 
question  arose. 

"The  jury  rendered  a  verdict  of  guilty.  X.  will 
be  required  to  furnish  maintenance  for  his  wife." 

The  situation  presented  by  this  case  should 
afford  food  for  thought  even  for  the  Legislature 
and  the  governor,  who  are  responsible  for  the 
law  under  which  it  arose. 

Civil  war  breaks  out  in  the  domestic  circle, — the 
husband,  commander-in-chief  on  one  side;  his  wife 
on  the  other.  Skirmishes,  battles,  and  campaigns 
follow.  The  bird  of  victory  perches  finally  upon 
the  banner  of  the  wife.  The  husband  is  overcome, 
and  driven  from  the  disputed  territory,  the  family 
hearth  and  rooftree.  Many  other  such  wars  have 
terminated  in  the  murder  of  one  and  the  suicide 
of  the  other.  Here  the  husband,  more  sensibly, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  61 

i  •?•» 

merely  withdraws.  The  place  is  no  home  for 
him.  He  has  had  enough,  and  leaves.  He  will  have 
no  more  to  do  with  such  an  establishment,  and 
withholds  his  contribution  to  the  support  of  a 
house  not  conducted  according  to  his  views,  and 
where  his  wishes  are  not  regarded.  He  is  there- 
upon arrested,  brought  into  court  a  prisoner,  and 
placed  before  the  judge  and  jury.  He  is  charged, 
not  with  murder,  highway  robery,  arson,  nor  burg- 
lary, but  with  not  supporting  a  woman  with  whom 
he  has  found  it  impossible  to  live  in  peace  and 
quietness. 

The  instructions  given  by  the  judge  to  the  jury, 
as  appears  by  the  record  of  the  case,  were  as 
follows : 

"The  Court  instructs  the  jury  that  a  quarrel 
between  Mr.  and  Mrs.  —  furnishes  no  defense 
to  the  claim  against  him  for  non-support,  and  if 
the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the  de- 
fendant has  failed  and  is  failing  to  provide  a  rea- 
sonable support  for  his  said  wife  they  should  find 
him  guilty,  unless  the  jury  believe  from  the  evi- 
dence that  Mrs.  —  refused  and  still  refuses  to  go 
to  live  with  Mr.  —  at  a  reasonably  suitable  house 
that  was  offered  by  him  to  her." 

The  specific  charge  on  which  the  husband  was 
arrested  was  that  on  a  certain  day  he  did  "un- 
lawfully desert  the  said  Mrs.  — ,  his  lawful 
wedded  wife,  and  refused  to  contribute  to  her 
support." 

Under   these    instructions,    which   merely  pre- 


62  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

sent  the  law  of  Virginia  which  applies  to  every 
husband  in  the  State,  the  only  defense  which  it 
would  be  permitted  the  wretched  man  to  make 
was  the  right  of  proving  that  his  wife  had  re- 
fused, and  still  refused,  to  live  with  him  at  a  rea- 
sonably suitable  house  provided  for  her  by  him. 
No  investigation  into  the  merits  of  the  contro- 
versy between  them,  or  as  to  who  was  respons- 
ible for  it,  would  have  been  allowed.  No  require- 
ment would  have  been  held  to  exist  on  the  part  of 
the  wife  to  show  that  she  had  performed  her 
wifely  duties  to  her  husband  before  she  could 
thus  (for  failure  to  discharge  his  duty  to  her) 
have  him  hauled  into  court  to  be  condemned  ig- 
nominiously  to  work  in  chains  upon  the  public 
roads.  No;  all  such  matters  would  have  been 
ruled  out  as  irrelevant.  Under  this  law,  con- 
quered and  driven  from  home,  the  husband  must 
yet  support  the  establishment  he  is  unwilling  to 
live  in. 

Suppose  he  were  to  come  back.  There  sits 
his  triumphant  antagonist,  flushed  with  victory, 
in  full  possession  of  the  field  of  battle,  which  once 
had  borne  the  name  of  home,  and  with  the  power 
of  the  Commonwealth  on  her  side  compelling 
him  to  support  her,  or  suffer  the  penalty.  And 
all  this  on  account  of  a  woman  who  may  have 
been  recreant  to  every  duty  she  owed  him.  What 
satisfaction  could  he  possibly  have,  after  these 
scenes,  in  living  again  with  her?  But  whether  he 
choose  to  live  with  her  or  not,  in  the  matter  of 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  63 

support,  it  is  all  the  same  to  her.  Possibly  a  wife 
might  much  prefer  her  husband's  not  living  with 
her,  and  might  get  up  such  a  quarrel  for  the  pur- 
pose of  driving  him  away.  All  the  same  she  must 
be  supported  by  him.  The  only  defense  he  can 
have  against  such  a  prosecution  is  for  -her  to  be 
unwilling  to  come  to  the  place  he  provides  for 
her,  supposing  it  to  be  "reasonably  suitable." 
This  term  is  vague  enough  to  bring  on  another 
civil  war,  if  she  be  still  so  disposed.  No  matter 
what  may  be  the  lodgings  the  poor  creature  may 
think  are  the  best  he  is  financially  able  to  provide, 
she  could  at  once  raise  the  point  that  they  were 
not  suitable. 

In  his  distress  a  husband  so  situated  has  to 
choose  between  living  with  his  conqueror  in  the 
house  she  then  is,  or  in  some  other,  or  of  incur- 
ring the  additional  expense  of  a  separate  estab- 
lishment for  himself,  or  of  being  condemned  to 
the  public  roads. 

What  standard  of  action  and  duty  on  the  part 
of  the  wives  is  set  up  by  such  a  law,  and  by  such 
proceedings  as  these?  None.  Under  this  law 
every  wife  in  Virginia  can,  if  she  choose,  make 
herself  unbearable  to  her  husband,  and  drive 
him  from  his  home,  and  even  do  this  thing  on 
purpose,  without  incurring  any  penalty  whatever 
therefor.  All  she  has  to  do  in  order  to  keep  her 
husband  under  obligation  to  support  her,  with  the 
threat  of  the  law  over  him,  is  to  be  willing  to  live 
in  the  same  house  with  him,  no  matter  what  the 


64  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

personal  relations  between  them  may  be.  The 
words  "reasonably  suitable"  would  be  held  to 
mean  suitable  to  the  woman,  as  the  wife  of  a  man 
of  the  financial  resources  and  station  in  life  of  the 
husband,  not  suitable  to  him  personally.  No 
one  would  care  what  kind  of  house  he  might 
choose  for  himself  to  live  in.  The  husband's 
judgment  of  what  would  be  suitable  for  him  and 
his  wife  to  live  in  would  not  be  conclusive.  When 
she  came  to  occupy  any  house  the  husband  might 
provide  the  wife  could  object  to  it  as  not  being 
suitable;  and  the  court  alone  could  finally  settle 
that  point.  But  this  would  not  prevent  her  from 
again,  by  similar  proceedings,  driving  her  hus- 
band out  of  that,  or  any  other,  house. 

There  is  no  escaping  the  conclusion.  The  hus- 
band is  beaten  into  fine  dust.  He  is  ground  to 
powder. 

No  reflection  is  intended  to  be  hereby  made  on 
the  wife  in  the  particular  case  cited  above.  The 
facts  in  that  case  are  unknown  to  the  writer.  It 
is  the  principle  of  the  law  applicable  to  that  case, 
and  to  every  other  case  which  could  arise  under 
that  statute,  which  is  here  criticised. 


CHAPTER  V 

It  is  an  open  and  serious  question  what  right, — 
moral  at  least,  if  not  legal, — the  Legislature  has 
to  pass  laws  of  this  nature  at  all,  so  far  as  it  is 
intended  to  affect  the  rights  of  husbands  who 
were  married  before  this  first  act  went  into  ef- 
fect,— that  is,  before  March  12,  1904.  It  is  a 
proposition  admitting  of  no  legal  question  that 
marriage  is  a  contract.  The  law  reads  many  in- 
cidents into  it  which  were  probably  never  in  the 
minds  of  the  contracting  parties.  Their  personal 
agreements,  and  the  large  body  of  legal  rules 
on  the  subject,  make  up  together  the  general  con- 
tract between  husband  and  wife  at  the  time  they 
were  married.  Their  contract  is  thus  made  up, 
in  much  the  larger  part,  by  the  rules  of  law  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  their  marriage.  Both 
parties  are  conclusively  presumed  to  know  the 
law,  and  all  contracts  are  made  with  reference  to, 
in  the  light  of,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  law. 
One  feature  of  the  contract  made  by  the  husband 
was  that  he  would  support  his  wife,  who  prom- 
ised to  serve  and  obey  him,  and  that  the  sheriff 
could  sell  his  property  in  order  to  enforce  'his 
obligations  in  this  respect.  He  did  not  agree 
that  his  wife  was  to  have  the  power  to  put  him 
in  jail,  if  he  did  not  support  her.  But  the  Legis- 

09 


66  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

lature  comes  upon  the  scene  later,  however,  and 
says  that  she  can  do  this  very  thing.  This  is  a 
variation  of  the  contract  as  made  by  the  husband; 
and  it  may  be  that  had  such  been  the  law  at  the 
time  of  his  marriage,  he  would  not  have  been 
willing  to  incur  any  such  risk.  In  our  opinion  the 
Legislature  is  without  proper  authority  in  thus 
tampering  with,  altering,  violating,  and  rewriting 
the  contract  as  made  by  the  parties. 

Of  course,  all  men  who  marry  since  the  passage 
of  these  acts,  do  so  at  their  own  risk.  There 
is  the  law,  and  there  is  the  girl,  and  there  is  the 
jail;  and  if  you  marry  her,  she  can  hold  the  keys 
of  it  over  your  head  at  all  times  for  desertion  or 
non-support,  under  the  circumstances  contem- 
plated by  the  acts.  If  you  be  unable  to  support 
her,  go  to  jail.  If  she  be  so  disagreeable  that  you 
cannot  live  with  her,  and  are  forced  to  run  away 
from  'her,  you  are  liable  to  be  caught,  brought 
back,  and  flung  into  jail.  Knowing  this  when 
you  marry,  you  cannot  now  complain  that  the 
Legislature  has  violated  the  contract  you  made 
with  your  wife. 

It  must  be  remembered,  in  considering  this 
statute,  that  it  is  still  the  law,  as  it  always  has 
been  and  always  should  be,  that  a  husband  and 
father  is  legally  liable, — that  is,  to  the  extent  of 
his  property, — for  the  support  of  both  his  wife 
and  his  children.  This  rule  is  absolutely  proper. 
The  objection  to  this  statute  is  that  for  the  first 
time  in  the  'history  of  our  State  certainly  the  fail- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  67 

ure  to  perform  these  moral  and  civil  duties  are 
made  criminal  offenses.  This,  too,  at  a  time 
when  husbands  have  the  least  possible  assistance 
from  their  wives',  or  children's,  property  to  aid 
them  in  discharging  these  obligations;  and  when, 
by  virtue  of  other  rules,  their  authority  over  their 
wives  and  children  is  reduced  to  the  lowest  point. 

This  objection  is  not  to  be  disposed  of  by  a 
superficial  approbation  of  a  rule  which  may  have 
been  intended  mainly  to  apply  to  those  wholly 
financially  irresponsible,  or  who  are  flagrantly 
delinquent  in  these  matters.  This  is  a  rule  which 
is  of  universal  application  throughout  the  State; 
its  effect  will  gradually  permeate  every  household 
in  Virginia,  and  tend  to  strain,  or  disrupt,  rela- 
tions which  would  otherwise  be  perfectly  harmoni- 
ous. Its  effect  will  be  similar  to,  although  operat- 
ing in  the  reverse  order  from,  the  case  presented 
to  us  in  the  book  of  Esther  (Chapter  I,  10-22.) 
King  Ahasuerus  ordered  his  wife,  Vashti,  to  ap- 
pear at  the  banquet-table.  She  refused.  The 
case  was  brought  before  a  solemn  council  of  state, 
and  the  queen  was  deposed,  on  the  ground  that 
she  had  done  wrong  not  only  to  the  King,  but 
also  to  all  the  princes,  and  to  all  the  people  that 
were  in  all  the  provinces  of  the  King.  For  this 
deed  of  the  queen,  they  said,  would  come  abroad 
unto  all  women,  so  that  they  would  despise  their 
husbands.  In  the  same  way,  as  a  wife  is  a  wife, 
whether  in  a  high  or  low  station,  when  the 
higher  ones  see  the  lower  ones  having  their  hus- 


68  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

bands  put  in  jail,  they  will  naturally  be  impressed 
by  their  right  to  have  their  husbands  also  put 
in  jail.  It  is  thus  that  the  whole  of  society  be- 
comes involved  by  such  rules  of  law. 

The  strongest  objection  to  this  legislation  is  the 
intrusion  of  the  civil  authorities  into  the  domestic 
circle,  and  its  paralyzing  influence  on  marital  and 
parental  authority.  The  husbands  and  fathers 
will  be  much  less  likely  to  desert  their  wives  and 
children,  if  they  have  proper  authority  over  them. 
This  has  already  been  badly  shaken.  Dissatis- 
faction on  the  part  of  the  husband  and  father 
naturally  follows.  Dissatisfaction  may  increase 
to  disgust,  and  he  may  leave  the  wretched  es- 
tablishment, in  which,  for  lack  of  proper  author- 
ity, there  is  no  order.  The  wife,  then,  as  a  plan 
to  make  him  love  "Home,  Sweet  Home"  the  more, 
sends  the  policeman  after  him,  and  has  him  flung 
into  prison.  When  he  comes  out  what  will  be  his 
frame  of  mind?  The  last  state  of  that  man, 
and  of  that  family,  will  be  likely  to  be  worse  than 
the  first.  In  desperation  'he  may  possibly  murder 
the  whole  family,  and  then  blow  out  his  own 
brains.  This  tragedy  happens  frequently.  We 
read  of  it  nearly  every  week.  We  do  not  say  that 
it  is  due  to  this  particular  statute,  but  no  doubt 
it  is  due  to  the  disorder  introduced  into  the  do- 
mestic relations  by  this  kind  of  legislation,  which 
has  disturbed  natural  order,  and  disorder  is  a 
natural  consequence. 

Why,  may  we  ask,  is  there  such  a  sudden  and 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  69 

tremendous  increase  in  the  duties  which  a  husband 
owes  his  wife  while  there  is  no  increase  at  all,  but 
a  steady  decrease,  in  the  duties  which  a  wife  seems 
to  owe  her  husband?  The  relation  is  as  old  as 
the  human  race.  Now  what  has  happened 
recently  to  make  it  proper  that  husbands  should 
be  treated  in  this  way?  If  arresting  people  be  the 
proper  way  to  secure  domestic  happiness,  why 
arrest  only  the  husband  on  account  of  failure  to 
discharge  marital  duties?  If  breakfast  be  late,  or 
the  buttons  be  not  sewed  on,  why  not  arrest  the 
wife?  Or,  if  the  children  be  disobedient,  why  not 
arrest  them?  In  short,  why  not,  in  order  to  secure 
real  peace  and  happiness  at  home,  put  a  policeman 
in  every  household,  make  them  the  general  cus- 
todians of  domestic  tranquillity,  and  turn  over 
every  home  to  the  sheriff  and  the  court?  Alas! 
peace  and  happiness  are  flowers  of  too  delicate  a 
growth  to  flourish  under  this  system. 

The  husband,  as  we  have  stated,  was  already 
fully  enough  responsible  for  the  support  of  his 
wife,  the  Legislature  having  taken  care  that  this 
liability,  even  in  two  exceptionally  rare  cases, 
should  be  also  expressly  provided  for  by  statute, 
thus:  Section  1707  makes  the  husband  liable  for 
the  support  of  'his  wife  if  insane,  and  this  liability 
of  the  husband  is  expected  to  relieve  her  estate 
from  her  own  support  during  this  period.  And, 
by  Section  4117,  if  the  husband  be  confined  in 
the  penitentiary,  his  estate  is  liable  for  her  sup- 
port in  the  same  proportion  as  if  he  were  dead. 


70  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

An  edifying  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  fol- 
lowing case  of  the  extent  to  which  the  ideas  of 
what  is  necessary  for  a  support  can  be  carried. 

"Indianapolis,  June  13. — That  diamonds  have 
become  so  great  a  necessity  for  the  proper  appear- 
ance of  a  well-to-do  woman  that  her  husband  is 
liable  for  their  purchase  by  her  as  necessities  was 
recognized  by  the  Appellate  Court  in  affirming  a 
judgment  for  $246  worth  of  jewelry  bought  by 
the  second  wife  of  Dr.  X.,  of  Kokomo. 

"The  purchase  included  a  diamond  stud  for 
$150,  from  which  she  removed  the  diamond,  hav- 
ing it  reset  in  a  ring  for  herself;  a  gold  watch;  a 
$50  scarf  pin,  and  several  small  articles. 

"The  second  Mrs.  X.  was  a  widow,  aged 
twenty-seven,  and  employed  as  a  milliner  when  she 
married  Dr.  X.,  aged  sixty-five.  She  had  roomed 
at  the  X.  home  before  the  death  of  the  first  Mrs. 
X.,  and  Dr.  X.  bought  her  a  fine  diamond  en- 
gagement ring  before  their  marriage,  with  the 
statement  that  she  should  have  more  diamonds 
after  marriage. 

"Dr.  X.  owned  more  than  $75,000  worth  of 
property,  but  was  always  inclined  to  the  simple 
life,  taking  care  of  his  own  horse,  while  the  sec- 
ond Mrs.  X.  was  inclined  to  dress  and  appear  well 
among  her  associates.  After  the  marriage  the 
way  of  true  love  jolted  over  financial  questions 
and  the  purchases  of  Dr.  X.  for  his  new  wife 
were  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  her  longings,  and  she 
made  a  trip  to  the  jewelry  store  herself. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  71 

"The  most  expensive  purchase  was  the  diamond 
stud,  which  the  new  Mrs.  X.  soon  was  wearing 
as  a  ring.  Dr.  X.  then  ordered  the  jewelers  not 
to  sell  his  wife  any  more  jewelry. 

"He  began  proceedings  later,  and  when  the 
jewelers'  bill  was  presented,  the  doctor  refused  to 
pay  it.  The  Howard  Circuit  Court  gave  the 
jewelers  a  judgment  against  the  doctor  and  he 
appealed. 

"The  Appellate  Court,  after  reviewing  the 
authorities  and  showing  the  former  holdings  rela- 
tive to  what  are  necessaries  for  a  wife  for  which  a 
husband  is  responsible,  says: 

'  'Under  the  Indiana  rulings,  we  must  hold  it 
to  be  a  question  of  fact  as  to  what  are  the  means 
and  station  of  life  of  the  parties  and  as  to  whether 
the  goods  purchased  are  suitable  to  such  means 
and  station.  The  standard  of  living  is  so  far 
advancing,  and  appellant  admits  that  the  standard 
has  advanced  in  Kokomo,  that  we  cannot  restrict 
the  meaning  of  the  terms  "necessaries"  and  "ar- 
ticles suitable  to  one's  station  in  life"  to  such 
articles  as  they  might  have  included  some  years 
ago. 

*  'It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge,  of 
which  not  even  courts  can  be  ignorant,  that  persons 
of  even  much  smaller  means  than  appellant  (Dr. 
X.)  are  accustomed  to  provide  their  wives  with 
jewelry  such  as  that  which  is  the  subject  of  this 
suit,  and  that  such  articles  can  certainly  be  said 
under  modern  conditions  to  be  suitable  to  the 


72  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

station  in  life  of  persons  of  the  financial  and  social 
standing  of  appellant/ ' 

If  diamonds,  the  most  purely  luxurious  and  un- 
necessary articles  imaginable,  can  foe  held  by  the 
courts  as  necessaries,  anything  else  on  earth  could 
be,  and  every  husband  might  be  liable  to  be 
plunged  into  expenditures  contracted  for  by  his 
wife  without  his  knowledge  or  consent,  or  even 
against  it,  and  his  fortune,  built  up  by  his  labor, 
intelligence,  self-denial  and  perseverance,  may  be 
scattered  to  the  winds;  and  'he  then,  possibly  un- 
able on  account  of  advancing  years  to  make  any 
more  money,  be  held  liable  to  be  flung  into  prison 
for  non-support. 

When  legislation  of  this  sort  acquires  momen- 
tum there  seems  to  be  no  limit  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  will  go.  Since  the  above  was  written 
a  bill  has  been  introduced  in  the  Legislature  of 
Virginia  proposing  to  make  the  non-support  of 
wives  a  felony,  punishable  by  confinement,  in  the 
penitentiary.  This  proposition  not  only  makes 
the  punishment  very  much  more  severe,  but 
makes  this  an  extraditable  offense,  for  which  the 
wretched  husband  may  be  arrested  in  another 
state  or  country,  and  brought  back  to  his  home 
for  trial.  There  is  thus,  even  by  flight,  no  place 
of  safety  left  for  him.  He  is  put  on  the  same 
footing  as  a  murderer. 

Then  another  wiseacre  brings  in  a  bill  to  give 
justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  of  these  cases, 
so  as  to  make  it  more  convenient,  easier,  cheaper, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  73 

and  more  informal  for  the  wives  to  have  the  hus- 
bands locked  up.  Just  run  around  the  corner 
and  get  the  justice,  instead  of  having  to  go 
through  with  an  orderly  and  solemn  proceeding 
in  court. 

An  ex-governor  of  a  Southern  State  now  joins 
in  the  'hue  and  cry  against  husbands,  and  advo- 
cates the  following  extravagance,  if  the  news- 
paper report  be  correct.  Here  is  what  it  says: 

"Chicago,  January  30. — A  curfew  law  for  hus- 
bands was  advocated  by  Robert  B.  Glenn,  former 
governor  of  North  Carolina,  in  a  speech  here 
last  night  on  the  subject,  'The  Country's  Need  of 
Sterling  Men  and  Women.' 

'  'The  man  who  stays  away  from  his  family 
at  night  is  the  most  contemptible  creature  on 
earth,'  he  says.  'I  wish  we  had  a  curfew  law  for 
husbands, — a  law  that  would  make  every  hus- 
band stay  at  home  from  eight  o'clock  in  the  even- 
ing until  six  o'clock  the  next  morning.  A  man's 
place  is  at  home  with  his  wife,  helping  to  train 
the  children  in  the  way  they  should  go.' ' 

A  New  York  magistrate  at  once  takes  hold 
of  this  brilliant  idea,  and  the  papers,  a  few  days 
after  the  promulgation  of  the  curfew  idea,  her- 
alded forth  this  wise  decree : 

"New  York,  February  13. — The  nine  o'clock 
curfew  will  ring  for  one  year  for  C.,  an  em- 
ployment agency  manager.  His  failure  to  report 
home  at  that  hour  every  night  will  result  in  a 
workhouse  sentence. 


74  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"C.  was  brought  into  court  on  his  wife's  com- 
plaint that  he  abused  her  and  stayed  out  nights. 

*  'For  twelve  months,'  said  the  magistrate,  'you 
will  have  to  be  home  nights  by  nine  o'clock,  and 
you  will  have  to  treat  your  wife  properly.' ' 

Soon  after  this  the  judge  of  one  of  the  courts 
of  the  newly  enfeminized  State  of  California  is 
represented  by  the  papers  as  advising  as  a  proper 
punishment  for  husbands  who  stay  out  late  at 
night  that  their  wives  give  them  no  breakfast 
the  next  morning. 

Men,  by  their  voluntary  actions,  bring  a  good 
deal  of  this  upon  themselves  by  not  assuming  the 
proper  place  in  regard  to  the  highest  things  in  life. 
They  too  often  abandon  the  leadership  in  regard 
to  the  highest  matter, — religion;  and  we  see  them 
meekly  led  along  by  their  wives  to  the  church 
which  the  wives  attend,  instead  of  taking  them  to 
their  own  churches.  If  they  would  open  their 
ears  when  they  get  there,  and  listen  to  the  reading 
of  the  recorded  Word,  they  would  hear  that  they, 
not  their  wives,  were  the  heads  of  the  families, 
and,  consequently,  might  understand  that  they 
were  the  husbands'  churches  which  should  be  at- 
tended. Having  made  this  fundamental  error, 
it  is  not  an  unnatural  transition  then  to  see  the 
husband  in  public  places  rolling  the  baby-carriage ; 
or  if  for  any  reason  their  pictures  should  be  put 
in  the  paper,  to  see  the  wife  portrayed  in  heroic 
size,  while  her  husband  is  struck  off  in  miniature 
in  the  corner. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  75 

Then  the  ingenuity  of  the  women  begins  to 
work,  and  a  mass  of  novel  propositions  are  ad- 
vanced: that  married  men  should  have  to  wear 
wedding-rings;  that  a  modification  should  be 
made  in  the  title  of  Mister,  to  show  whether  a 
man  be  a  married  or  a  single  man;  that  all  un- 
married men  be  taxed  for  the  selfish  luxury  they 
enjoy  of  being  single;  that  the  women  should  keep 
their  maiden  names;  and  so  forth,  and  so  on. 

All  these  propositions  have  one  end  in  view, — 
to  break  down  the  position  of  man,  and  to  have 
women  dictate  to  men  their  status  in  marriage, 
instead  of  having  this  relation  such  as  the  men  of 
the  world  have  thought  best  to  make  it.  The 
weakness  with  which  the  men  of  the  United  States 
have  resisted  and  resented  these  changes  has  al- 
ready prejudiced  the  position  of  men  in  this  coun- 
try for  generations  to  come.  To  yield  still 
further  will  ruin  it  forever.  The  "American  hus- 
band" has  already  become  a  byword;  he  has  not 
much  further  to  go  to  become  the  laughing-stock 
of  the  nations. 

As  in  the  days  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  when 
the  wretched  victim  was  brought  forth  to  be  burnt 
at  the  stake,  and  his  inhuman  tormentors  ingeni- 
ously diminished  the  sympathy  which  his  suffer- 
ings might  have  been  calculated  to  awaken  in  the 
hearts  of  the  spectators  by  making  him  an  object 
of  ridicule,  dressing  him  up  in  absurd  costumes, 
with  figures  representing  the  devil  sewed  upon 
his  clothes  and  with  other  grotesque  devices,  so 


76  SHALL  WOMAN  VOTE? 

the  victim  of  the  modern  persecution  of  the  head 
of  the  family  is  made  ridiculous,  and  often  spoken 
of  and  joked  about  as  "Hubby,"  a  word  never 
heard  before  the  era  of  his  persecution  began, 
but  which,  if  allowed  by  men  to  be  applied  to 
them,  may  confidently  be  counted  upon  to  do  its 
part  in  'helping  to  degrade  the  husband  even  more 
than  the  word  "Dad"  will  undermine  the  fathers. 

A  fair  sample  of  all  this  is  a  bill-board  sign  re- 
cently posted  in  this  city  of  a  "funny"  moving- 
picture  show, — "Mr.  Hubby's  Wife," — in  which 
the  "hubby"  is  presented  on  his  knees,  hands 
opened,  and  eyes  rolling  up  to  heaven,  while  his 
wife  is  beating  him  over  the  head  with  a  clothes- 
tree. 

A  less  important,  but  still  noticeable  fact,  is 
the  tendency  to  drop  out  of  the  language  the 
words  "son"  and  "daughter."  They  are  sup- 
planted by  the  words  "boy"  and  "girl."  The 
word  boy  applies  just  as  well  to  the  office-boy,  the 
elevator-boy,  or  the  stable-boy.  Girl  applies  just 
as  well  to  the  shop-girl,  the  cash-girl,  or  the 
house-girl.  Son  and  daughter  are  much  deeper, 
and  mean  they  who  are  descended  from  one. 
There  is  an  exclusiveness  and  dignity  which  be- 
longs to  these  words,  which  it  seems  is  displeasing 
to  those  who  wish  to  take  children  away  from 
their  parents,  or  to  those  who  lightly  regard  fam- 
ily life.  One  can  more  easily  break  into  the 
family  circle  when  the  children  are  generalized 
under  the  words  boys  and  girls.  This  makes  them 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  77 

members  merely  of  the  whole  community,  instead 
of  sons  and  daughters,  which  words  unite  them 
by  a  so  much  firmer  bond  to  their  parents. 

Even  the  word  "Home"  has  been  lowered.  We 
now  hear  of  the  "home"  of  this  or  that  national 
bank,  the  "home"  of  a  piano  store,  the  "home" 
of  a  club,  the  "home"  of  a  shoe  store,  and  so  on. 
Is  it  possible  that  the  explanation  of  this  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact,  not  that  the  men  who  use  the 
word  do  not  know  what  a  home  means,  but  be- 
cause they  find  more  of  that  blessed  content  which 
is  supposed  to  belong  to  such  a  spot  in  their  busi- 
ness places  than  they  do  anywhere  else? 

Our  civilization  is  off  the  track.  The  further 
the  locomotive  is  forced  ahead  along  this  line  the 
deeper  the  whole  train  will  sink  into  the  quagmire. 
The  attempt  to  subordinate  men  to  women  and 
children,  and  to  tie  husbands  to  their  wives' 
apron-strings,  if  it  succeed,  would  simply  mean 
the  ruin  and  disgrace  of  the  race. 

If  they  stand  in  mortal  terror  of  arrest  by  their 
wives,  and  are  shut  up  in  their  homes  every  night 
as  in  a  jail,  while  their  children  roam  the  streets, 
and  their  wives  are  out  at  a  party,  "The  Land 
of  the  Free  and  the  Home  of  the  Brave"  is  a 
description  which  could  no  longer  be  applied,  ex- 
cept in  jest,  to  that  portion  of  the  earth  inhabited 
by  the  men  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  issues  raised  by  the  new  laws  on  this  sub- 
ject are  of  such  a  fundamental  character  that  the 
subjects  here  discussed  rise  above  any  question 


78  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  chivalry.  No  women  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
ever  put  forth  such  audacious  demands  as  the 
women  of  America  are  putting  forth  to-day.  The 
welfare  of  the  race  is  at  stake;  for  no  less  a  ques- 
tion is  ultimately  involved  in  these  measures  than 
who  is  to  control  public  and  private  affairs  in 
this  country,  the  men  or  the  women? 

When  all  the  women  such  as  we  have  always 
thought  of  women  as  being,  or  trying  to  be,  or 
at  least  being  told  that  they  should  be,  shall  have 
been  ruined  and  utterly  exterminated  by  these  new 
laws,  what  have  the  men  of  the  world  to  expect 
in  the  way  of  pleasant  companionship,  affectionate 
cooperation,  sympathy,  and  love  from  the  race 
of  shrews,  scolds,  termagants,  amazons,  viragos, 
furies,  and  suffragettes  who  would  take  their 
places?  These  last  are  surely  insatiable.  With 
all  that  has  been  done  for  women  in  the  past  few 
years,  their  present  demands  convict  them  of 
being  true  daughters  of  the  horseleach. 

What  powerful  influences  have  been  at  work 
to  make  such  legislation  possible?  Why  have 
legislatures  composed  of  men  been  willing  to  enact 
rules  which  bear  so  heavily  upon  other  men,  and 
so  degrade  them  in  respect  to  their  highest  rela- 
tions, those  of  husband  and  father?  It  would 
appear  that  the  irresponsibility  for  their  financial 
obligations,  which  has  been  created  in  the  last 
few  decades  for  all  debtors,  may  be  partly  the 
cause  of  the  adoption  of  these  laws. 

The  husband  is  civilly  liable  for  the  support  of 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  79 

his  wife.  But  between  him  and  the  grocer's  bill, 
the  butcher's  bill,  the  milk  bill,  the  dressmaker's 
bill,  and  so  on,  there  stand  the  "poor  man's  ex- 
emption," which  covers  nearly  all  the  household 
goods ;  the  fifty  dollars  a  month  salary  exemption, 
and  the  "Homestead  Exemption,"  covering  two 
thousand  dollars'  worth  of  any  kind  of  property, 
from  the  home  in  which  the  family  lives  down  to 
barrels  of  whiskey,  in  which  a  "Homestead"  has 
been  known  to  be  claimed  by  a  solemn  deed  spread 
upon  the  public  records.  The  consequence  of  these 
exemptions  is  that,  although  the  husband  is  liable 
and  judgment  can  be  obtained  against  him,  yet  in 
the  vast  majority  of  cases  he  is  what  is  called 
"execution  proof,"  and  nothing  can  be  actually 
realized  from  the  judgment  after  it  is  obtained. 

Add  to  these  exemptions  that  favorite  scheme 
of  putting  such  property  as  he  may  have  in  his 
wife's  name,  and  then  try  to  collect  a  bill  from 
him,  and  you  will  find  yourself  engaged  in  a  hope- 
less enterprise.  This  situation,  resulting  in  so 
many  cases  in  complete  immunity  from  just  lia- 
bilities, has  occurred  too  often  not  to  call  for 
some  measure  of  relief.  But  the  remedy  which 
has  been  applied,  instead  of  repealing  these  de- 
moralizing and  dishonesty-creating  exemptions,  is 
a  recurrence  to  the  essential  principles  of  the  law 
of  imprisonment  for  debt,  repealed  in  Virginia  in 
the  year  1850,  now  making  it  apply,  however, 
only  to  the  moral  obligation  of  a  man  to  his  wife 
and  family,  instead  of  making  it  apply,  as  the 


8o  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

Legislature  might  have  done,  to  his  legal  obliga- 
tion to  his  creditors,  who  have  given  valuable  con- 
siderations for  their  particular  claims,  by  furnish- 
ing supplies  for  the  support  of  the  family.  By 
creating,  claiming,  and  using  these  exemptions  to 
defeat  the  just  claims  of  their  creditors  the  men 
have  helped  to  bring  upon  themselves  a  worse 
affliction  than  having  to  pay  their  debts.  "Cheat- 
ing works  never  thrive."  They  can  now  be  put 
in  jail,  a  proceeding  which,  while  ruining  the 
home,  neither  supports  the  family  nor  pays  the 
bills. 

With  reference  to  the  care  and  custody  of  the 
children,  the  law  is  that  the  husband  is  entitled 
to  them,  and  that  they  will  not  be  taken  from 
his  custody  without  the  strongest  reasons  there- 
for; and  this  right  is  not  affected  by  the  voluntary 
separation  of  the  parties.  (See  Latham  vs. 
Latham,  30  Grattan,  307.)  By  Section  2610  it 
is  provided,  however,  that  the  court  may  take 
them  from  him  when  the  husband  and  wife  are 
living  in  a  state  of  separation,  without  having 
been  divorced. 

Formerly  the  law  protected  the  relation  of  hus- 
band and  wife  from  intrusion  by  the  outside 
world,  or  by  the  State.  What  the  husband  told 
the  wife  could  not  be  proved  against  him;  what 
the  wife  told  the  husband  could  not  be  proved 
against  her.  The  relation  was  held  sacred  and 
inviolable.  There  was  then  some  one  in  the 
world  that  either  consort  could  unburden  his  or 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  81 

her  heart  to  freely  and  live  with,  without  danger. 

What  has  the  Legislature  done  with  this  rule? 
It  has  changed  it  completely  so  far  as  civil  suits 
generally  are  concerned;  but  it  is  still  fairly  well 
preserved  as  to  criminal  proceedings.  Under  Sec- 
tion 3346  A  (Acts  1901-2,  p.  798),  the  title  to 
your  property  may  all  be  taken  away  from  you, 
and  all  sorts  of  liabilities  may  be  fixed  upon  you, 
by  putting  your  wife  on  the  stand  to  prove  the 
case  against  you, — that  is,  by  any  other  evidence 
which  she  may  give  than  your  communications 
made  to  her  during  the  marriage.  She  cannot 
prove  the  case  against  you  by  what  you  told  her; 
but  she  can  by  what  she  may  have  seen  and 
learned,  which  she  would  not  have  seen  and 
learned  probably  but  for  being  your  wife. 

As  to  criminal  cases,  this  statute  provides  that 
either  a  husband  or  wife  "shall  be  allowed,  and, 
subject  to  the  same  rules  of  evidence  governing 
other  witnesses,  may  be  compelled  to  testify  in 
behalf  of  each  other,  'but  neither  shall  be  com- 
pelled nor,  without  the  consent  of  the  other,  al- 
lowed to  testify  against  the  other;  provided,  how- 
ever, if  either  be  called  and  examined  in  any  case 
as  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  other,  the  one  so 
examined  shall  be  deemed  competent,  and,  sub- 
ject to  the  same  rules  of  evidence  governing  other 
witnesses,  may  be  compelled  to  testify  against  the 
other.  The  failure  of  either  husband  or  wife 
to  testify  shall  create  no  presumption  against 
the  accused,  nor  be  the  subject  of  any  comment 


82  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

before  the  court  or  jury  by  the  prosecuting  at- 
torney." 

It  would  seem  much  the  wiser  to  have  this 
principle  apply  also  to  civil  proceedings  in  gen- 
eral. What  a  happy  relation  would  be  likely  to 
prevail  in  a  family  in  which  the  husband  had  lost 
his  whole  fortune  by  the  evidence  his  wife  had 
given  against  him !  Domestic  peace  and  harmony 
is  too  precious  a  thing  to  be  allowed  to  be  broken 
up  in  this  way;  at  least,  such  was  the  view  for- 
merly taken  of  it.  And  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  as  precious  to-day  as  it  was  then. 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  rules  on  the  subject  of  divorce  have  not 
been  changed  in  as  radical  a  way  as  in  regard 
to  property  rights  and  other  personal  rights  of  the 
parties;  and,  compared  with  them,  may  be  con- 
sidered fixed  and  somewhat  more  reasonable. 
Still,  they  are  far  removed  from  the  Scriptural 
view  of  this  relation,  which  is  that  of  absolute 
identity. 

uThe  Pharisees  also  came  unto  him,  tempting 
him,  and  saying  unto  him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man 
to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause? 

"And  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Have 
ye  not  read,  that  he  which  made  them  at  the  be- 
ginning made  them  male  and  female, 

"And  said,  for  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 
and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh? 

"Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one 
flesh.  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder."  (Matthew  XIX,  3-6.) 

South  Carolina  is  the  only  State  where  this 
view  is  enforced,  no  divorce  being  there  per- 
mitted. 

83 


84  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

The  New  Testament,  however,  allows  one 
ground  (Matthew  V,  32).  The  law  generally 
should  conform  to  this. 

The  code  of  Virginia  recognizes  twelve  grounds 
of  divorce  (Sections  2257,  2258).  In  marriage 
either  consort  takes  the  other  for  better  or  for 
worse.  But  the  Legislature  comes  in  and  authorizes 
an  absolute  divorce  where  either  of  the  parties  is 
sentenced  to  confinement  in  the  penitentiary,  and 
provides  that  in  this  case  no  pardon  granted  to  the 
party  so  sentenced  shall  restore  such  party  to  his 
or  her  conjugal  rights.  This  is  not  a  proper 
ground.  Persons  sometimes  get  sentenced  to  the 
penitentiary  for  offenses  they  never  committed. 
Or,  even  if  they  did  commit  them,  the  sentence 
might  be  for  only  a  short  time.  But  in  any  case 
it  is  not  a  good  ground  for  a  divorce.  Because 
you  have  lost  your  liberty  is  no  reason  why  you 
should  lose  your  wife  or  your  husband.  You 
should  have  one  friend  at  least  whom  you  may  still 
retain  when  your  term  is  over.  What  a  noble 
example  was  presented  by  the  heroic  efforts  of 
Madame  Dreyfus,  who,  while  her  husband  was  a 
prisoner  on  Devil's  Island,  instead  of  getting  a 
divorce  from  him,  established  his  innocence  and 
had  him  set  free. 

Another  improper  ground  is  that  where,  prior 
to  the  marriage,  either  party,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  other,  has  been  convicted  of  an  infa- 
mous offense.  What  is  an  infamous  offense?  And 
what  has  that  to  do  with  a  marriage  contracted 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  85 

afterward?  It  establishes  it  as  a  rule  of  law  that 
once  be  convicted  of  an  infamous  offense,  and  you 
cannot  contract  a  valid  marriage  unless  you  dis- 
close the  fact  to  the  person  you  expect  to  marry. 
Why  not  let  the  dead  past  bury  its  dead? 

Another  utterly  objectionable  ground  of  abso- 
lute divorce  is  that  where  either  party  charged 
with  an  offense  punishable  with  death  or  con- 
finement in  the  penitentiary  has  been  indicted,  is  a 
fugitive  from  justice,  and  has  been  absent  two 
years.  One  can  easily  imagine  cases  of  the  great- 
est hardship  under  such  a  rule  as  that.  Two 
years  is  a  very  short  time.  Your  alleged  crime 
may  be  a  political  one, — rebellion,  treason,  or 
some  such  charge.  Why  should  that  authorize  the 
tearing  of  your  wife  from  you?  And  as  to  being 
a  fugitive  from  justice,  anybody  is  likely  to  be- 
come a  fugitive  from  justice,  if  'he  think  he  will 
probably  be  convicted  of  something  that  he  may 
not  have  done.  It  is  much  more  likely  to  appear 
in  his  eyes  that  he  is  a  fugitive  from  injustice  than 
from  justice. 

Another  objectionable  ground  is  the  rule  allow- 
ing an  absolute  divorce,  where  either  party  wil- 
fully deserts  or  abandons  the  other  for  three 
years;  such  divorce  may  be  decreed  to  the  party 
abandoned.  The  objection  to  this  rule  is  that 
it  is  very  likely  to  be  due  to  the  person  abandoned 
that  he  or  she  is  abandoned.  The  rule  can  be 
worked  this  way.  Make  yourself  so  disagreeable 
that  your  consort  prefers  to  abandon  you  rather 


86  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

than  to  live  with  you,  then  get  a  divorce  on  the 
ground  of  desertion. 

A  qualified  divorce  may  be  obtained  for  cruelty, 
reasonable  apprehension  of  bodily  hurt,  abandon- 
ment, or  desertion  (Section  2258). 

The  abandonment  or  desertion  in  this  case  may 
have  existed  for  one  day.  The  cruelty  and  rea- 
sonable apprehension  of  bodily  hurt  may  be  only 
due  to  all  sorts  of  ill-founded  fears  and  notions. 

We  will  have  reached  a  worse  point  in  the 
development  of  this  divorce  system  when  we  add 
incompatibility  of  temper,  which  simply  means 
that  the  parties  cannot  get  on  together,  or  do  not 
choose  to,  or  are  tired  of  each  other,  and  so  on. 

An  illustration  of  the  length  to  which  these 
doctrines  go  in  breaking  up  homes  is  shown  in  the 
following  newspaper  extracts,  taken  at  random 
from  the  daily  papers  in  St.  Louis,  Mo.  This 
is  from  the  St.  Louis  Republic,  September  8,  1904, 
the  names  only  being  here  suppressed : 

"A.  B.  C.  charged  in  her  suit  for  divorce,  filed 
in  the  Circuit  Court  yesterday,  that  her  husband, 
Frederick,  had  his  picture  taken  with  another 
woman. 

"She  also  alleged  that  he  called  her  bad  names 
and  said  that  he  was  tired  of  married  life.  They 
were  married  at  Clayton,  Mo.,  August  21,  1901, 
and  separated  November  12,  1903.  She  asks 
for  the  restoration  of  her  maiden  name,  X." 

"W.Z-.  alleges  that  her  husband,  Z.,  compelled 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  87 

her  to  work  to  support  herself  and  him,  and 
that  he  refused  to  work  and  spent  his  time  'hunting 
and  fishing.  His  father  and  sisters  lived  with 
them,  and  his  father  cursed  her  and  called  her  bad 
names,  she  alleges.  The  couple  were  married 
November  9,  1892,  at  Nashville,  111.,  and  sepa- 
rated in  August,  1902.  She  asks  for  the  restora- 
tion of  her  maiden  name,  Y." 

"X.  Y.  charges  that  her  husband,  Y.,  drank  and 
failed  to  support  her.  They  were  married  No- 
vember 13,  1889,  and  separated  June  2,  1904. 
She  asks  for  the  custody  of  their  child." 

UA.  B.  alleges  that  her  husband,  B.,  abused  her 
and  failed  to  support  her.  They  were  married 
September  2,  1898,  and  separated  March  23, 

i899." 

"A.  B.  C.  charges  that  her  husband,  C.,  failed 
to  support  her  and  deserted  her.  They  were 
married  February  12,  1902,  and  separated  April 

15,  1902." 

UX.  Y.  Z.  charges  that  his  wife,  F.,  deserted 
him,  August  6,  1897.  They  were  married  June 
7,  1897." 

"W.  X.  Y.  charges  that  his  wife,  C.,  subjected 
him  to  indignities.  They  were  married  February 

1 6,  1893,  and  separated  September  i,  1904.     He 
asks  for  the  custody  of  their  two  children." 

"A.  B.  C.  alleges  that  her  husband,  C.,  drove 
her  out  of  the  house  and  locked  'her  out  at  night. 
They  were  married  June  25,  1893,  and  separated 


88  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

August  9,  1904.  She  asks  for  the  custody  of  their 
two  children." 

"B.  A.  alleges  that  her  husband,  A.,  failed  to 
support  her,  was  cruel  to  her,  and  drove  her  out 
of  the  house.  They  were  married  June  20,  1898, 
and  separated  September  4,  1904.  She  states 
that  her  husband  receives  $250  a  month." 

"X.  Y.  alleges  that  her  husband,  Y.,  deserted 
her  in  December,  1900.  They  were  married  at 
Oakley,  111.,  March  5,  1889." 

"A.  B.  charges  that  his  wife,  B.,  subjected  him 
to  indignities.  They  were  married  October  n, 
1898,  in  St.  Louis,  and  separated  April  3,  1901.'* 

"C.  D.  charges  that  her  husband,  D.,  failed  to 
support  her,  and  deserted  her.  She  was  com- 
pelled to  live  with  her  mother,  who  supported 
her  and  her  child,  she  states.  They  were  mar- 
ried in  St.  Louis,  June  i,  1901,  and  separated 
August  8,  1901." 

"A.  B.  alleges  that  her  husband,  B.,  abused  her 
and  failed  to  support  her.  They  were  married 
April  26,  1893,  and  separated  February  8,  1904. 
She  asks  for  the  custody  of  their  child." 

The  same  paper,  two  days  afterward,  reported 
the  daily  crop  as  follows : 

"X.  Y.  Z.,  in  his  suit  for  divorce,  filed  in  the 
Circuit  Court  yesterday,  alleges  that  his  wife,  M., 
was  jealous  and  disturbed  him  in  his  occupation 
of  hotel  clerk.  They  were  married  June  19,  1894, 
and  separated  August  2,  1904." 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  89 

"A.  B.  charges  that  her  husband,  B.,  drank  and 
failed  to  support  her.  They  were  married  Sep- 
tember 14,  1899,  and  separated  February  10, 
1903.  She  asks  for  the  restoration  of  he* 
maiden  name,  C." 

UX.  Y.  Z.  charges  that  her  husband,  Z.,  stayed 
out  late  at  night,  abused  her,  and  failed  to  sup- 
port her.  They  were  married  December  i,  1898, 
and  separated  May  5,  1904." 

"A.  B.  alleges  that  his  wife,  B.,  refused  to  pre- 
pare his  supper,  and  struck  'him  with  a  towel-stick 
while  he  was  bathing.  They  were  married  June 
15,  1902  and  separated  May  i,  1904.  He  asks 
for  the  custody  of  their  child." 

"X.  Y.  charges  that  his  wife,  E.,  subjected  him 
to  indignities.  They  were  married  March  30, 
1892,  and  separated  September  7,  1904." 

"A.  B.  alleges  that  his  wife,  A.  subjected  him 
to  indignities.  They  were  married  in  June,  1885, 
in  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  and  separated  in  April, 
1899.  He  asks  for  the  custody  of  their  five  chil- 
dren." 

Under  this  system,  any  disturbance  is  seized 
upon  as  a  ground  of  divorce.  The  fundamental 
relation  of  the  race  is  to  be  broken  up,  the  family 
torn  asunder,  the  children  fought  over,  whenever 
husband  and  wife  get  put  out  and  engage  in  the 
least  quarrel.  Patience,  resignation,  fortitude, 
fidelity,  meekness,  long-suffering,  and  other  kin- 
dred virtues  are  not  inculcated  nor  fostered  by 


90  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

such  a  system.     To  the  contrary,  they  are  left  to 
wither  and  vanish  from  the  earth. 


A  fine  case  of  cruelty  as  a  ground  of  divorce 
comes  from  New  York : 

"New  York,  September  7.— Mrs.  Y.  Z.  filed  a 
suit  for  separation  from  Z.  on  the  ground  of 
cruelty.  One  of  her  chief  allegations  is  that  on 
many  occasions  he  taunted  her  because  of  her  size 
and  weight. 

"She  said  that  in  May  last  he  came  home  one 
night,  awakened  her,  and  thrust  in  her  face  a 
newspaper  advertisement  of  a  remedy  to  reduce 
weight,  and  advised  her  to  use  it. 

uMrs.  Z.  also  said  that  a  letter  was  sent  to  her 
from  a  Denver  concern  advertising  treatment  for 
stout  women.  It  was  an  answer  to  a  request  for 
information.  She  believes  her  husband  had  the 
letter  sent  to  humiliate  and  distress  her." 

An  effect  of  these  proceedings,  well  worthy  of 
mention,  is  the  vulgarization  of  marriage.  Under 
the  former  rules  of  law  a  veil  was  drawn  around 
the  home.  What  happened  there  was  not  for  the 
public  to  know,  to  comment  upon,  to  criticise,  to 
laugh  at,  or  to  weep  over.  Personal  and  family 
dignity  was  protected,  and,  in  that  fact,  fostered. 
The  family  troubles  are  now  too  often  promptly 
"aired"  in  the  police  court.  The  reporters  are 
on  hand,  and  the  daily  papers  reveal  the  disgrace- 
ful scenes  to  everybody. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  91 

"Fort  Collins,  Col.,  December  28.— Chief  of 
Police  S.  is  peeved.  He  thinks  he  has  a  right 
to  be.  He  declared  shortly  after  midnight  that 
he  doesn't  mind  being  called  out  of 'bed  to  run 
down  criminals,  but  does  object  to  being  asked 
to  determine  whether  a  newly  married  husband  or 
wife  is  entitled  to  the  right  side  of  a  bed. 

"Called  by  an  anxious  voice  over  the  telephone 
he  rushed  immediately  to  an  address  in  the  east- 
ern part  of  town.  S.  arrived  to  find  a  newly  mar- 
ried couple  in  the  midst  of  a  lively  debate. 

"A  nineteen-year-old  wife  informed  him  that 
her  husband  had  in  two  short  months  of  married 
life  been  in  the  habit  of  going  to  bed  first  and 
appropriating  the  choicest  side,  to  which  she 
claimed  an  equal  right. 

"When  Chief  S.  and  two  deputies  left  the 
home,  after  spending  an  hour  in  an  attempt  to 
settle  the  dispute,  the  wife  occupied  the  coveted 
place  she  sought." 

The  effort  has  apparently  been  made  to  make 
the  wife  independent  of,  and  therefore  separate 
from,  her  husband,  giving  him  little  or  no  interest 
in  her  property,  and  no  control  over  her  person, 
and  instead  making  the  husband  amenable  to 
the  civil  authorities  for  any  injury  to  or  neglect  of 
her. 

This  is  an  impossible  scheme  for  satisfactory 
matrimonial  relations.  It  is  fatally  defective  in 


92  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

dividing,  neutralizing,  or  destroying  the  authority 
of  the  husband  as  the  head  of  the  family.  It  is 
unphilosophical,  and  opposed  to  the  known  needs 
of  .society,  and  the  construction  of  all  human 
institutions,  every  one  of  which  must  have  a 
head, — a  recognized  legal  head,  with  known 
rights  and  powers  which  are  unquestioned  by 
those  within  its  sphere  of  influence.  Order  is 
necessary  for  peace;  peace  is  necessary  for  hap- 
piness. All  the  analogies  we  are  familiar  with 
bear  out  this  proposition;  there  is  only  one  fore- 
man over  a  band  of  laborers,  one  leader  of  an 
orchestra,  one  presiding  officer  of  a  meeting,  one 
president  of  a  company,  one  principal  of  a  school, 
one  conductor  of  a  train,  one  captain  of  a  ship, 
one  general  over  an  army,  one  Governor  of  a 
State,  one  President  of  a  Country,  one  King  over 
a  Kingdom. 

This  rule  prevails  throughout  all  the  combina- 
tions of  life.  The  most  important  combination 
of  all  is  the  domestic  circle.  Here  that  rule  must 
also  prevail.  There  must  be  one  head,  or  there 
is  discord,  confusion,  anarchy,  and  unhappiness. 
Happiness  is  the  object  to  be  attained,  not  for 
one  member  of  the  family  only,  but  for  all, — 
the  husband,  the  wife,  and  the  children, — and 
this  is  to  be  found  in  a  due  and  orderly  construc- 
tion of  the  family,  assigning  to  each  his  or  her 
proper  place.  Disorder  and  anarchy  are  the 
greatest  of  all  misfortunes  which  can  befall  man- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  93 

kind.  The  crew  of  a  ship  which  has  mutinied 
are  not  in  a  happy  state.  The  overthrow  of 
lawful  authority  merely  gives  rise  to  the  erection 
of  illegal  and  violent  authority.  It  is  only  under 
an  orderly  arrangement  in  the  State,  city,  or 
family  that  peace,  and  consequent  happiness,  is 
to  be  found.  Such  was  the  former  rule;  but 
this  rule  has  in  very  recent  years  been  shaken 
to  pieces  by  the  Legislature. 

The  head  of  the  house,  to  be  the  head  of  the 
house,  should  have  the  command  of  the  family 
means;  in  order  to  discharge  his  obligation  to 
support  the  family.  This  is  an  old  principle. 
Upon  marrying,  a  man  assumes  a  large  burden 
of  responsibility.  The  customs  of  our  own  an- 
cestors formerly  recognized  this,  as  is  still  the 
case  on  tthe  continent,  and  the  family  of  the  bride, 
if  she  had  no  means  herself,  made  up  a  sum 
which  he  received  with  her.  He  was  entitled  to 
it.  The  plan  now  in  vogue  is  to  deny  him  nearly 
everything. 

The  psychology  of  this  on  the  part  of  the  wife 
is  also  bad.  It  make  a  separation.  All  is  not 
given.  The  bride  gives  herself,  but  withholds 
her  property.  This  is  not  -the  full,  whole-souled 
adoption  of  the  husband  as  her  head,  leader,  pro- 
tector, and  counselor,  which  he  should  be. 

The  greatest  writer  in  our  language,  and  one 
of  the  greatest  known  exponents  of  human  na- 
ture, has  drawn  a  very  different  picture  of  the 


94  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

natural  attitude  of  a  woman  toward  the  man  she 
loves.  Bassanio  has  risked  his  choice  of  the 
caskets  for  the  hand  of  the  beautiful  and  rich 
heiress,  Portia.  He  has  chosen  well,  and  Portia 
is  to  be  his  wife.  Her  feeling  toward  her  future 
husband  is  thus  beautifully  expressed  when  she 
says  to  him : 

"You  see  me,  Lord  Bassanio,  where  I  stand, 

Such  as  I  am :  though  for  myself  alone 

I  would  not  be  ambitious  in  my  wish, 

To  wish  myself  much  better;  yet  for  you 

I  would  be  trebled  twenty  times  myself : 

A  thousand  times  more  fair,  ten  thousand  times 

more  rich, 

That,  only  to  stand  high  in  your  account, 
I  might  in  virtues,  beauties,  livings,  friends, 
Exceed  account;  but  the  full  sum  of  me 
Is  sum  of — something;  which,  to  term  in  gross, 
Is  an  unlesson'd  girl,  unschooled,  unpracticed; 
Happy  in  this,  she  is  not  yet  so  old 
But  she  may  learn;  then  happier  in  this, 
She  is  not  bred  so  dull  but  she  can  learn ; 
Happiest  of  all,  in  that  her  gentle  spirit 
Commits  itself  to  yours  to  be  directed, 
As  from  her  lord,  her  governor,  her  king. 
Myself  and  what  is  mine  to  you  and  yours 
Is  now  converted :  but  now  I  was  the  lord 
Of  this  fair  mansion,  master  of  my  servants, 
Queen  o'er  myself ;  and  even  now,  but  now, 
This  house,  these  servants,  and  this  same  myself, 
Are  yours,  my  lord;  I  give  them  with  this  ring." 

How  could  Bassanio  help  loving  such  a  wife 
as  that ! 

It  should  be  the  object  of  the  lawmakers  to 
insure,  promote,  and  increase  love  between  hus- 
band and  wife.  If  this  be  accomplished,  all  the 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  95 

rest  will  work  out  satisfactorily  and  automatically. 
The  question  is  therefore  a  most  important  one 
in  this  connection;  which  system  will  more  tend 
to  promote  love  between  husband  and  wife?  On 
the  one  hand,  a  policy  of  full  trust  and  confidence 
in  the  husband,  or,  on  the  other,  a  policy  of 
distrust  and  a  separation  of  interest  between  the 
consorts.  There  is  a  lot  of  human  nature  in 
husbands.  Marriage  is  a  state  which  men  are 
free  to  enter,  or  not,  as  they  choose.  No  sane 
man  takes  such  a  step  if  he  does  not  expect  to 
gain  something  by  it.  If  the  Legislature  adhere 
to  the  policy  of  stripping  the  husbands  of  all 
benefit,  advantage,  or  pleasure  which  they  might 
derive  from  marriage,  a  natural  consequence  of 
this  policy  would  be  to  discourage  men  from 
entering  into  that  state.  It  has  some  advantages, 
and  many  responsibilities,  restrictions,  burdens, 
and  limitations.  Add  to  these  burdens  and  these 
responsibilities  the  policeman,  the  sheriff,  the 
criminal  courts,  and  the  jails,  and  take  away  as 
many  of  the  advantages  as  possible,  and  the  men 
may  prefer  to  find  their  happiness  in  the  pleasures 
of  single  blessedness, — in  clubhouses,  or  in  the 
lower  pleasures  of  bar-rooms,  'and  other  such  re- 
sorts. When  marriage  is  sought  to  be  made,  on 
these  modern  lines,  (thoroughly  satisfactory  to  the 
women,  it  will  be  found  probably  not  to  please 
the  men.  It  will  probably  also  not  really  suit  the 
women,  for  this  scheme  of  married  life  tends  to 


96  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

extract  all  the  sweetness  from  the  relation,  and 
to  supplant  love,  trust,  devotion,  and  honor  with 
distrust,  reservation,  conflicts  of  authority,  and 
discord. 

This  policy  is,  as  we  all  know,  a  new  thing 
in  Virginia,  only  dating  back  to  April  4,  1877, 
and  going  from  that  date  rapidly  from  bad  to 
worse. 

Its  effect  on  the  social  and  business  status 
of  married  men  has  already  been  bad,  and 
the  injury  tends  to  increase  rapidly.  We  all 
know  many  persons  who  were  married  under  the 
old  system.  Very  many  of  us  are  the  children 
of  marriages  made  under  that  system.  These 
two  classes  yet  leaven  the  lump  of  society,  and, 
in  a  measure,  keep  alive  the  ideals  which  for- 
merly characterized  this  relation.  But,  as  with 
every  revolving  year  we  get  farther  and  farther 
away  from  that  time,  and  there  are  fewer  and 
fewer  representing  the  former  conditions,  and 
more  and  more  who  have  never  known  anything 
but  the  present  system,  the  relation  will  become 
more  and  more  demoralized. 

The  fact  should  be  emphasized  that  around 
the  old  system, — the  system  of  love,  confidence, 
and  trust, — sprung  up  and  blossomed  the  flowers 
of  poetry  and  romance.  All  our  love  stories, 
and  all  the  dear  traditions  of  the  past  on  this 
subject,  were  coexistent  with  the  laws  which  have 
been  so  recently  overthrown;  while  around  the 
present  system  has  grown  up  the  noxious  weed 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  97 

of  divorce,  and  the  too  often  repeated  scenes  of 
violence,  terminating  in  murder  and  suicide. 

Divorce  will  continue  to  increase,  and  these 
tragedies  will  increase,  not  until  the  laws  relating 
to  divorce  merely  be  made  more  strict,  as  is  the 
frantic  demand  of  so  many  well  meaning  men 
and  women,  public  speakers  and  writers,  but  until 
the  marriage  relation  be  made  again  more  satis- 
factory. A  system  contemplating  two  heads  in 
one  house,  or  the  unmanly  surrender  of  leader- 
ship to  the  women,  is  a  system  which  will  forever 
foster  divorce,  if  indeed  it  do  not  undermine  mar- 
riage and  society  itself. 

There  is  no  disgrace  in  a  wife's  obeying  her 
husband.  We  all  have  to  obey  someone;  most 
of  us,  a  great  many  persons.  We  must  obey  God. 
We  must  obey  the  laws,  we  must  obey  the  civil 
authorities,  the  governor,  the  policeman,  the  con- 
ductor, die  captain,  our  employers,  and  so  forth. 
If  there  were  to  be  no  obedience,  the  world  would 
be  a  pandemonium.  All  lawful  authority  must 
be  obeyed,  without  question,  promptly  and  cheer- 
fully. With  obedience,  there  is  satisfaction  to 
both  parties.  With  disobedience  to  lawful 
authority,  nothing  can  be  expected  but  turmoil. 
The  religion,  the  laws,  and  the  customs  of  the  race 
leave  no  question  as  to  which  is  the  one  to  exer- 
cise this  authority.  It  is  the  husband.  The 
reasonableness  of  this  is  well  stated  by  Shakes- 
peare in  these  lines,  in  which  the  once  terrible 
Katharina,  softened  into  a  loving  and  dutiful 


98  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

wife,  tells  to  the  women  of  all  time  their  proper 

duties  to  their  husbands : 

"Fie,  fie!  unknit  that  threat'ning,  unkind  brow; 

And  dart  not  scornful  glances  from  those  eyes, 

To  wound  thy  lord,  thy  King,  thy  governor; 

It  blots  thy  beauty,  as  frosts  bite  the  meads; 

Confounds  thy  fame,  as  whirlwinds  shake  fair  buds; 

And  in  no  sense  is  meet  or  amicable. 

A  woman  moved  is  like  a  fountain  troubled, 

Muddy,  ill-seeming,  thick,  bereft  of  beauty; 

And  while  it  is  so,  none  so  dry  or  thirsty 

Will  deign  to  sip,  or  touch  one  drop  of  it. 

Thy  husband  is  thy  lord,  thy  life,  thy  keeper, 

Thy  head,  thy  sov'reign;  one  that  cares  for  thee, 

And  for  thy  maintenance ;  commits  his  body 

To  painful  labor,  both  by  sea  and  land, 

To  watch  the  night  in  storms,  the  day  in  cold, 

Whilst  thou  liest  warm  at  home,  secure  and  safe; 

And  craves  no  other  tribute  at  thy  hands 

But  love,  fair  looks  and  true  obedience, — 

Too  little  payment  for  so  great  a  debt. 

Such  duty  as  the  subject  owes  the  prince, 

Even  such  a  woman  oweth  to  her  husband; 

And,  when  she's  froward,  peevish,  sullen,  sour, 

And  not  obedient  to  his  honest  will, 

What  is  she  but  a  foul  contending  rebel, 

And  graceless  traitor  to  her  loving  lord? — 

I  am  asham'd  that  women  are  so  simple 

To  offer  war,  where  they  should  kneel  for  peace ; 

Or  seek  for  rule,  supremacy,  and  sway, 

When  they  are  bound  to  serve,  love  and  obey. 

Why  are  our  bodies  soft  and  weak  and  smooth, 

Unapt  to  toil  and  trouble  in  the  world, 

But  that  our  soft  conditions,  and  our  hearts, 

Should  well  agree  with  our  external  parts?" 

When  it  is  said  that  it  is  the  right  of  the 
husband  to  command,  what  is  meant  is  not  that  he 
is  to  do  this  in  a  loud  voice  and  in  an  insulting 
manner.  No  gentleman,  nor  reasonable  man, 
would  do  this.  Such  a  course  would  make  living 
together  on  the  part  of  any  two  persons,  so  re- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  99 

lated,  impossible.  What  is  meant  is  that  his 
definitely  expressed  wish,  or  judgment,  is  to  be 
observed  in  all  uncertain  or  debated  matters.  His 
views  in  these  cases  should  be  followed  without 
question,  as  a  matter  of  course,  just  as  the  orders 
given  by  the  physician  to  his  patient,  the  lawyer 
to  his  client,  the  judge  to  the  sheriff,  the  officer 
to  the  soldier,  the  general  to  his  staff,  the  War 
Department  to  the  generals,  the  Bishop  to  his 
clergy,  or  any  other  order  which  emanates  from 
lawful  authority. 

The  propriety  of  a  wife's  promising  to  obey 
such  orders  was  brought  up  for  decision  in  a  case 
which  was  probably  the  highest  which  could  arise 
in  our  race.  Victoria,  Queen  of  the  United  King- 
dom of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  Empress 
of  India,  was  about  to  be  married  to  Albert, 
Prince  of  Saxe-Coburg  and  Gotha.  Her  min- 
isters raised  the  point  that  if  she  promised  to 
obey  her  husband,  as  the  marriage  service  of  the 
Church  of  England  required,  the  control  of  the 
Kingdom  might  thus  pass  from  her  to  this  for- 
eign prince,  and  the  rights  of  her  subjects  be  put 
under  his  authority.  They  therefore  advised,  in 
this  extraordinary  case,  that  the  form  of  the  ser- 
vice be  altered,  so  that  the  promise  on  her  part 
"to  obey"  should  be  omitted.  That  great  woman 
brushed  all  these  arguments  aside,  refused  to  have 
the  words  of  the  marriage  service  changed,  and 
declared  that  she  not  only  intended  to  be  a  good 
queen,  but  a  good  wife  also. 


ioo          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

Josephine,  the  lovable  Empress  of  France,  says : 
"Our  glory,  the  glory  of  woman,  lies  in  submis- 
sion; and  if  it  be  permitted  us  to  reign,  our  empire 
rests  on  gentleness  and  goodness." 

Obedience  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  every- 
thing. It  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  prog- 
ress and  safety.  The  Bible  enjoins  upon  us  the 
rule:  "Be  ye  subject  one  to  another,"  not,  uBe 
ye  all  independent  one  of  another,  and  no  one 
obey  any  one  else."  Human  society  would  have 
come  to  an  end  long  ago,  had  it  worked  accord- 
ing to  any  such  plan.  The  truth  and  importance 
of  this  is  emphasized  in  times  of  very  great  nat- 
ional danger  and  difficulty,  when  the  last  resort 
of  all  is  made  use  of,  in  the  appointment  of  a 
Dictator,  to  whom  every  one, — man,  woman,  and 
child, — must  yield  immediate  and  absolute  obedi- 
ence. 

Why  should  a  woman  not  obey  her  husband? 
Single  headship  and  unity  of  purpose  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  success  of  every  undertaking.  A 
house  divided  against  itself  falls.  What  would 
become  of  the  ship,  if  two  steersmen  tugged  in 
conflict  at  the  rudder;  what  would  become  of  the 
coach  and  its  passengers,  if  two  drivers  each  held 
a  rein;  or,  of  the  automobile,  if  two  directed  its 
course?  Are  not  the  affairs  of  the  family  most 
important  of  all,  and  is  it  not  inevitable  that  the 
rules  which  regulate  human  conduct  in  other  mat- 
ters are  applicable  in  the  same  way  to  the 
domestic  circle? 


HUSBAND  'AND  WIFE 

The  man  a  woman  marries  holds  thereby  the 
office  of  husband.  Her  obedience  to  him  is  obedi- 
ence to  lawful  authority;  and  obedience  to  lawful 
authority  never  disgraced  anyone.  No  matter 
what  laws,  made  by  human  authority,  may  do  to 
undermine  this  office,  its  foundation  and  dignity 
rest  upon  decrees  which  cannot  be  repealed.  They 
were  established  by  the  Creator  of  the  Universe. 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  supposed,  or  alleged,  trouble  which  this 
'  modern  legislation  in  England  and  America 
sought  to  correct  was  the  creation  of  so  great  an 
interest  in  the  wife's  property  in  favor  of  the 
husband  solely  by  virtue  of  the  marriage.  The 
solution  of  this  trouble  might  have  been,  either 
the  development  of  a  system  involving  a  com- 
munity of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  husband  and 
wife  in  regard  to  all  the  property  which  belonged 
to  either,  or  a  system  of  separate  ownerships  by 
the  two  consorts,  the  wife  to  keep  hers,  the  hus- 
band to  keep  his,  with  certan  rights  for  each  in 
the  property  of  the  other,  after  the  death  of 
either. 

The  latter  plan  has  been  adopted,  to  the  com- 
plete exclusion  of  the  former;  but  no  modifica- 
tion in  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  hus- 
band was  made  to  correspond  with  the  change 
which  very  seriously  affected  his  rights.  Instead, 
having  found  him  willing  to  submit  to  having 
these  rights  taken  away  from  him,  the  husband 
has  become  the  butt  or  target  for  legislation  of 
a  very  hostile  nature.  It  seems  to  be  the  policy 
of  our  Legislatures  to  see  how  much  he  will 
stand.  The  situation  in  England  in  this  respect, 

103 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  103 

though  not  nearly  so  bad  as  with  us,  has  yet 
called  forth  from  a  very  high  authority  the  fol- 
lowing criticism: 

"A  law  which  was  preeminently  favorable  to 
the  husband  has  become  a  law  that  is  preemi- 
nently favorable  to  the  wife,  and  we  do  not  ade- 
quately explain  this  result  by  saying  that  a  harsh 
or  unjust  law  is  like  to  excite  reaction;  we  ought 
also  to  say  that  if  our  modern  law  was  to  be  pro- 
duced, it  was  necessary  that  our  medieval  lawyers 
should  reject  that  idea  of  community  which  came 
very  naturally  to  the  men  of  their  race  and  of 
their  age.  We  may  affirm  with  some  certainty 
that,  had  they  set  themselves  to  develop  that 
idea,  the  resulting  system  would  have  taken  a 
deep  root  and  would  have  been  a  far  stronger 
impediment  to  the  'emancipation  of  the  married 
woman'  than  our  own  common  law  has  been. 
Elsewhere  we  may  see  the  community  between 
husband  and  wife  growing  and  thriving,  resist- 
ing all  the  assaults  of  Romanism  and  triumphing 
in  the  modern  codes.  Long  ago  we  chose  our 
individualistic  path;  what  its  end  will  be  we 
none  of  us  know."  (Pollock  and  Maitland's 
"History  of  English  Law,"  Vol.  II,  p.  431.) 

Of  course  we  do  not  know  the  future,  but 
we  know  from  the  past  how  such  a  similar  sys- 
tem worked  out  in  the  later  Roman  jurisprudence. 
In  Inge's  "Society  in  Rome  Under  the  Caesars," 
on  page  182,  we  find  the  following: 

"Rich  wives  were  not  much  sought  after  by 


104          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

wise  men.  Their  complete  emancipation  made 
them  difficult  to  manage,  and  many  a  henpecked 
husband  acknowledged  the  truth  of  Martial's 
epigram — 

1.  "'Uxorem   quare  locupletem   ducere   nolim 
quceritis?    Uxori  nub  ere  nolo  mea,' x 

and  exclaimed  with  Juvenal, 

2.  "  'Intolerabilium     nihil    est    quam    femlna 
divesJ 2 

"Accordingly,  since  rich  and  poor  wives  were 
both  objectionable,  the  large  majority  of  men 
never  married  at  all.  So  strong  was  the  aversion 
to  matrimony  that  neither  taxes  on  bachelors 
nor  rewards  to  fathers  had  any  effect.  In  re- 
publican days  a  Metellus  had  expressed  the  com- 
mon opinion  when  he  said,  'If,  Romans,  we  could 
exist  without  a  wife,  we  should  all  avoid  the 
infliction;  but  since  nature  has  ordained  that  we 
can  neither  be  happy  with  a  wife  nor  exist  at 
all  without  one,  let  us  sacrifice  our  own  comfort 
to  the  good  of  our  country.'  In  the  first  century 
A.  D.,  men  were  less  patriotic,  but  not  a  whit 
more  disposed  to  married  life." 

On  page  62  of  the  same  work  we  find  this: 
"Without  further  details,  then,  let  us  state  that 
the  Empire  found  the  whole  of  society  pervaded 
with  the  grossest  immorality,  that  marriage  was 
avoided  to  an  extent  which  threatened  the  extinc- 


1.  You  ask  why  I  am  unwilling  to  marry  a  wife  rich  in 
lands?     I  am  unwilling  to  be  in  subjection  to  my  wife. 

2.  Nothing  is  more  intolerable  than  a  rich  wife. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  105 

tion  of  the  Roman  stock,  that  divorce  was  prac- 
ticed with  a  scandalous  levity  and  frequency." 

On  page  37  of  the  same  work  we  read:  "So 
great  were  the  advantages  of  childlessness  that 
Seneca  consoles  a  mother  who  had  just  lost  her 
only  son  by  reminding  her  of  the  greater  con- 
sideration she  will  now  enjoy.  A  man  who  mar- 
ried was  regarded  as  hardly  in  his  senses, — 'Certe 
sanus  eras?  Uxorem,  Postume,  duels?'"* 

Such  was  the  final  result  at  Rome  of  a  policy 
similar  to  our  new  rules  on  this  subject. 

This  system  naturally  leads  to  divorce,  the 
proportion  of  divorces  to  marriages  increasing 
rapidly.  And  it  has  been  estimated  that  eighty 
per  cent,  of  the  divorce  suits  are  brought  by  the 
wives  against  their  husbands. 

The  following  statements  are  probably  correct : 

"Kansas  City,  Mo.,  September  25. — Woman, 
not  man,  is  the  real  homewrecker,  according  to 
statistics  that  are  being  compiled  from  the  divorce 
court  records  here.  So  far  as  the  statistics  show, 
eighty  per  cent,  of  the  divorce  suits  now  on  the 
docket  of  the  Circuit  Court  are  brought  by  wives, 
while  virtually  the  same  percentage  of  the  suits  are 
brought  on  so-called  trivial  charges,  such  as  in- 
compatibility of  temper,  quarrels,  and  other  al- 
legations which  do  not  charge  infraction  of  the 
moral  or  civil  laws. 

"Previous    statistics    showed   that   in   Jackson 

*Ypu  certainly  used  to  be  sane.    Are  you  going  to  get 
married,  Postumus? 


106  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

County,  in  which  Kansas  City  is,  there  were  three 
suits  for  divorce  filed  for  every  five  marriage 
licenses  issued,  and  this  startlingly  high  percent- 
age prompted  an  investigation  into  divorce  sta- 
tistics. 

"It  was  found  that  while  eighty  per  cent,  of 
the  plaintiffs  were  women,  and  eighty  per  cent. 
of  their  suits  were  brought  on  trivial  charges, 
that  less  than  ten  per  cent,  of  the  suits  filed  by  the 
men  were  based  on  trivial  charges,  while  ninety 
per  cent,  were  based  on  the  more  serious  charges 
of  desertion,  immoral  conduct,  or  neglect  of  the 
home  through  a  preference  for  working.  Men, 
too,  it  was  shown  by  the  suits,  were  long-suffering, 
the  average  duration  of  married  life  of  pairs  in 
which  the  husband  was  the  plaintiff  being  twice 
the  duration  of  the  marriage  in  suits  in  which  the 
wife  was  plaintiff. 

"Women,  too,  the  statistics  show,  have  ap- 
parently less  regard  for  the  future  of  their  chil- 
dren. Whereas,  where  men  are  plaintiffs  in 
divorce  suits,  the  average  is  only  one  child  to 
a  family,  three  hundred  suits  taken  consecutively 
from  the  docket  in  which  women  are  plaintiffs, 
show  nearly  one  thousand  children,  or  an  average 
of  a  little  more  than  three  to  the  family." 

"Boston,  Mass.,  October  16. — Women  them- 
selves are  almost  entirely  to  blame  for  the  large 
number  of  divorces,'  declared  Miss  Mary  F. 
Macomber,  pastor  of  the  Wales  Avenue  Baptist 
Church  of  Brockton,  in  a  recent  sermon.  The 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  107 

causes  for  divorces,  according  to  Miss  Ma- 
comber,  are: 

"Late,  cold,  and  hurried  meals;  too  much  gos- 
siping and  talking;  too  many  teas,  parties,  and 
socials;  too  many  club  meetings;  too  little  home 
attention;  too  much  domestic  extravagance;  too 
many  fads,  fancies,  and  follies,  and  not  enough 
care  for  a  tidy,  comfortable,  bright,  and  homelike 
home. 

"  'The  women  blame  it  on  their  husbands/  says 
Miss  Macomber,  'and  accuse  them  of  staying 
away  at  night,  of  drinking,  of  preferring  other 
society  to  theirs,  and  so  forth.  But  true  as  these 
charges  may  be,  the  root  of  the  evil  is  always  that 
the  husbands  have  not  found  in  their  homes  con- 
geniality enough  to  make  them  desire  to  remain 
in  them.' " 

Mrs.  Hetty  Greene  endorses  these  views,  if 
the  following  newspaper  version  of  an  interview 
with  her  be  correct : 

"  'Another  thing/  she  said,  'that's  all  wrong  is 
the  home  life  of  people.  There  aren't  any  homes. 
Women  are  too  busy  trying  to  take  men's  work 
away  from  them.  I  don't  believe  in  suffrage. 
Women  spend  all  their  time  and  money  on  their 
clothes  and  amusements  and  let  their  homes  take 
care  of  themselves. 

"  'Nowadays  women  feed  their  husbands  and 
children  on  canned  food,  because  its  easier,  and 
the  husbands  get  mad  and  holler,  and  then  there's 
a  row  and  a  divorce.  And  if  there  isn't  the 


io8          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

husbands  get  sick  on  the  canned  cooking  and  die. 
My  husband  lived  till  he  was  eighty-two  years 
old.  I  never  fed  him  any  canned  food.  That's 
what  my  cooking  did.' ' 

When  a  divorce  suit  is  brought  by  a  wife 
against  her  husband,  the  following  provision  of 
the  Code  of  Virginia  applies :  uThe  court  in 
term  or  the  judge  in  vacation  may,  at  any  time 
pending  the  suit,  in  the  discretion  of  such  court 
or  judge,  make  any  order  that  may  be  proper  to 
compel  the  man  to  pay  any  sums  necessary  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  woman  and  to  enable  her 
to  carry  on  the  suit,  or  to  prevent  him  from  im- 
posing any  restraint  on  her  personal  liberty,  or 
to  provide  for  the  custody  and  maintenance  of 
the  minor  children  of  the  parties  during  the 
pending  of  the  suit,  or  to  preserve  the  estate  of 
the  man,  so  that  it  be  forthcoming  to  meet  any 
decree  which  may  be  made  in  the  suit,  or  to  com- 
pel him  to  give  security  to  abide  such  decree." 
(Code,  Section  2261.) 

To  anyone  who  comprehends  the  full  mean- 
ing of  this  statute  it  is  little  less  than  terrible. 
Your  wife,  having  become  estranged  from  you, 
probably  from  no  fault  of  yours,  decides  to  sue 
for  divorce.  Her  picture  will  possibly  be  put  in 
the  paper,  and  she  will  think  herself  a  heroine. 

You  and  your  estate  are  at  once  put  by  this 
statute  at  the  mercy  of  the  judge  who  has  juris- 
diction of  the  case.  Your  wife's  lawyers,  it  may 
be  personal  enemies  of  yours,  help  themselves  to 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  109 

such  part  of  your  property  as  they  may  consider 
a  proper  compensation  to  them  for  bringing  the 
suit  against  you.  You  pay  them  for  tormenting 
you,  for  breaking  up  your  home,  and  tearing 
your  wife  from  you.  You  are  also  to  pay  all 
other  costs  which  your  wife's  suit  against  you 
calls  for.  You  are  also  ordered  to  pay  at  once 
such  sum  as  may  be  necessary  for  your  wife's 
maintenance.  If  you  be  a  poor  man,  the  sum  will 
take  a  large  part  of  your  earnings  or  savings. 
If  you  be  a  rich  man,  it  will  amount  to  a  handsome 
income.  But,  you  say,  you  would  not  do  it,  that 
you  consider  it  an  outrage  to  plunder  you  in  this 
manner  for  the  benefit  of  your  wife,  who  has 
acted  very  badly  toward  you,  that  the  whole 
difficulty  was  due  to  the  unreasonableness  of  your 
wife,  and  that  it  was  all  brought  on  by  the  bad 
advice  given  her  by  her  relations.  For  these 
reasons,  you  say,  you  are  fully  justified  in  de- 
clining to  pay  one  cent  to  aid  her  in  her  most 
unjust  conduct.  Very  well,  the  judge  will  order 
the  sheriff  to  put  you  in  jail  for  "contempt  of 
court,"  in  not  paying  what  he  has  ordered  you 
to  pay;  and  off  to  jail  you  will  be  marched, 
locked  up,  and  treated  as  a  criminal,  until,  ap- 
preciating the  hopelessness  of  your  situation,  you 
raise  the  money  and  pay  it  over. 

Having  thus  provided  those  who  are  now  your 
open  and  avowed  enemies  with  the  sinews  of  war 
against  you,  the  suit  proceeds.  Your  wife  wants  a 
divorce  from  the  bond  of  matrimony,  the  custody 


no          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  all  the  children,  to  resume  her  maiden  name, 
and  to  have  a  large  and  steady  income  paid  over 
by  you  to  her,  under  the  name  of  alimony.  The 
facts  justifying  the  divorce  have  to  be  taken  by 
depositions,  a  long  and  costly  process,  for  which 
you  have  to  pay.  Your  actions  are  put  under 
the  microscope.  Your  estate,  resources,  and 
"earning  capacity"  are  all  investigated;  and  at 
the  end  of  the  ordeal  you  find  yourself  under  a 
decree  to  pay  probably  a  large  lump  sum,  or  a 
large  proportion  of  your  income,  or  what  you 
might  earn,  for  the  rest  of  her  life,  for  the  sup- 
port of  your  former  helpmeet,  who  has  now  be- 
come the  cause  of  your  greatest  earthly  misery. 

You  rebel  again,  you  protest,  and  declare  that 
you  will  not  submit  to  such  gross  injustice.  You 
will  sell  your  property,  and  leave  a  country  where 
such  injustice  is  tolerated.  But  your  wife's  law- 
yer, whom  you  have  paid,  has  been  too  smart 
for  that.  You  forget  about  the  injunction  which 
had  been  entered,  which  prevents  your  parting 
with  any  of  your  property;  and  when  you  decline 
to  pay  the  alimony  allowed,  the  jail  again  closes 
upon  you.  Now  just  read  over  again  that  statute, 
and  you  will  appreciate  what  it  means,  and  what 
position  you  really  occupy  in  this  modern  con- 
struction of  society.  With  such  a  threatening 
danger  as  that  hanging  over  him,  even  a  brave 
man  is  apt  to  be  unnerved  when  he  considers  the 
trouble  which  might  be  brought  upon  him  at  any 
time  by  her  from  whom  he  had  expected  his 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  in 

greatest  comfort  and  pleasure.  And  when  this 
trouble  comes  it  is  real  trouble, — so  real  that 
it  is  often  extinguished  in  the  blood  of  all  the 
parties  to  the  suit. 

The  husband  in  this  proceeding  is  reduced,  we 
might  say,  to  his  lowest  expression.  Weak  and 
contemptible  as  is  his  position  in  many  respects 
in  regard  to  this  relation,  it  is  nowhere  so  pitiful 
as  here.  A  few  extracts  taken  from  the  daily 
papers  will  show  the  application  of  these  rules : 

"Judge   L.,    in   the   Circuit   Court   of  

County,  yesterday  signed  a  decree  granting  Mrs. 
X.  Y.  Z.  temporary  alimony  of  twenty  dollars  a 
month,  pending  her  suit  against  X.  Y.  Z.  for 
divorce.  The  court  not  only  orders  Z.  to  pay 
the  monthly  sum  for  the  support  of  his  wife  and 
child,  Y.  Z.,  but  he  is  also  directed  to  pay,  within 
a  reasonable  time,  the  sum  of  fifty  dollars  to  C. 
W.  and  I.,  attorneys  for  his  wife,  with  permission 
to  the  attorneys  to  apply  for  an  increase  of  this 
allowance  if  the  circumstances  of  the  case  justify 


an  increase." 


uTwo  divorces  were  granted  yesterday  in  the 
City  Circuit  Court.     A.  B.  C.  was  released  from 
the   bonds   of  matrimony  with   his  wife,    B.    C. 
They  were  married  in  1876  and  lived  together 
until    1896,   when  the  plaintiff   alleged  his   wife 
deserted  him  because  he   refused  to  give  her  a 
deed  to  their  home.     They  have  six  children." 
"X.  Y.  Z.   was  granted  a   divorce   from   her 
husband,  Z.,  who  is  required  to  pay  one-fourth 


H2          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  his  net  earnings  for  the  support  of  their  two 
children,  who  are  left  in  the  custody  of  the 
mother." 

"Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  January  28.— Mrs.  A.  B. 
C.,  wife  of  A.  B.  C.,  whom  she  was  charged  with 
attempting  to  poison,  was  released  on  her  own 
recognizance  by  Judge  J.  in  the  Criminal  Court 
to-day,  the  bail  being  left  at  ten  thousand  dollars. 

"A  few  minutes  before,  she  had  been  served 
with  papers  in  a  divorce  action  filed  by  her  hus- 
band in  which  it  was  stated  that  application  would 
be  made  February  4  for  an  injunction  to  restrain 
her  from  communicating  with  or  harassing  her 
husband  or  from  interfering  in  any  way  with  her 
children,  X.  and  Y.,  or  from  entering  their  house 
on  the  island.  A  counter  suit  for  divorce  is  being 
prepared  by  Mrs.  C.'s  counsel,  and  the  papers, 
it  is  said,  will  be  served  early  next  week.  Since 
A.  B.  C.  neglected  to  announce  that  he  would 
not  be  responsible  for  the  debts  contracted  by 
his  wife,  it  is  held  that  he  will  be  called  upon  to 
pay  the  costs  of  the  late  trial,  about  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars." 

"When  Mrs.  X.  Y.  secured  a  divorce  from 
X.  Y.,  of  Fairmount  Park,  on  December  20 
last,  on  the  grounds  of  cruelty,  Y.  was  ordered 
by  the  court  to  pay  the  fee  of  his  wife's  counsel, 
C.  P.  F.,  amounting  to  twenty-five  dollars.  At- 
torney F.  has  informed  the  Court  that  Y.  has 
not  paid  this  fee,  and  a  rule  was  issued  against 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  113 

Y.  yesterday  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Norfolk 
County,  requiring  him  to  show  cause  on  February 
20  why  he  should  not  be  punished  for  contempt 
of  court." 

Where  these  fees  and  allowances  for  support 
are  small  sums,  as  in  the  particular  cases  given, 
one  can  tell  at  once  that  the  parties  to  the  suit 
are  poor  people.  Let  a  rich  man  be  before  the 
court,  and  the  amounts  will  be  very  different. 
Judges  are  but  human,  and  it  is  easy  to  be  liberal 
in  giving  away  another  person's  means. 

What  an  encouragement  to  divorce  is  found  in 
the  statement  just  issued  that  X.  has  settled  a 
million  on  his  divorced  wife.  He  appears  to  have 
been  the  plaintiff  in  the  suit  for  divorce,  and  so 
the  settlement  of  this  sum  may  have  been  of  his 
own  choice;  but  it  helps  to  form  a  standard  by 
which  courts  may  be  influenced  in  arriving  at 
amounts  to  be  decreed  in  cases  where  the  wife 
brings  the  suit.  It  was  bad  enough  in  the  past, 
when  a  man  was  married  merely  for  his  money. 
But  now  he  may  be  married  for  his  money  in  a 
much  truer  sense  than  ever  before.  One  case  has 
been  heard  of  where  a  woman  married  a  man 
with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  afterward  quar- 
relling with  him,  and  obtaining  a  decree  for  ali- 
mony. The  temptation  to  do  this  increases  stead- 
ily with  the  progress  of  the  movement  here  dis- 
cussed. 

A  poor   or  unfortunate  man  under  the   new 


ii4          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"progressive"  ideas  embodied  in  the  recent  acts 
of  legislation  may  be  put  in  jail  for  non-support. 
The  man  of  average  means  can  be  driven  from 
his  home  and  still  compelled  to  support  it.  The 
rich  man  can  be  plundered. 

It  was  said  a  few  days  ago  in  the  papers  that 
the  clinging  type  of  woman  was  becoming  rarer. 
Of  course  everybody  knows  what  is  meant  by  the 
word  clinging, — the  dear,  sweet  women  that  men 
can  love  and  trust,  and  who  are  fulfilling  the 
duties  which  are  naturally  theirs  as  the  helpmeets 
of  their  husbands.  Under  existing  rules,  is  there 
any  wonder  that  they  are  becoming  rarer?  The 
question  may  be  asked,  how  long  will  it  be  before 
they  vanish  altogether? 

Women  are  what  men  choose  to  make  them. 
The  woman  of  the  past,  who  was  a  friend  to 
man,  was  so  made  by  the  rules  of  society  formu- 
lated by  men.  The  woman  of  the  future  may  be 
anything  but  a  friend  to  man.  Developed  ac- 
cording to  rules  which  she  may  desire  to  lay 
down,  she  may  become  his  competitor,  his  rival, 
his  opponent,  in  the  outside  world,  and  in  his 
home  the  source  of  vexation  and  misery  untold. 

In  a  general  way  up  to  very  recently  the  ap- 
proved attitude  of  men  toward  women  was  that 
of  protection.  The  attitude  of  women  toward 
men  was  that  of  allegiance  to  them  as  the  heads 
of  their  families;  and,  partly  in  fair  exchange  for 
the  labor  and  care  expended  by  the  men  in  their 
behalf,  they  were  taught  and  they  expressed  a 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  115 

desire  to  save  and  please  them.  Mutual  good 
will  and  the  exchange  of  good  offices  resulted. 
Each,  working  in  different  fields  supplementary 
to  each  other,  helped  the  other.  What  shall  be 
said  of  the  work  of  the  agitators  who  seek  to 
change  this  harmony  into  discord,  and  to  set  the 
units  of  society,  now  amicably  cooperative,  into 
antagonism  and  strife  among  themselves  over  an 
issue  which  need  never  have  been  raised? 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Marriage  is  still  respected  in  Virginia.  Di- 
vorce is  on  the  increase.  It  is  talked  and  jested 
about,  and  the  stage  makes  a  great  noise  over 
it,  but  among  the  upper  classes  it  is  nearly  an 
unknown  thing.  The  people  who  get  divorces 
are  people  who,  as  a  rule,  are  not  socially  promi- 
nent, most  likely  persons  who  have  recently 
moved  to  our  State.  This  is  due,  of  course, 
mainly  to  the  laws  of  Virginia  on  this  subject, 
which,  while  they  allow  divorces  for  several 
causes,  most  of  the  causes  are  so  rare  that  in 
practical  application  they  amount  to  nothing. 
Only  the  more  serious  grounds  are  acted  on  with 
us.  Such  should  always  be  the  case.  If  any 
change  ought  to  be  made  in  our  laws,  it  should 
be  in  the  way  of  repeal  of  some  of  the  grounds 
now  allowed,  not  in  the  addition  of  others. 

Above  all  things,  we  want  no  "uniform 
divorce  law,"  applying  to  all  the  States.  The 
people  who  urge  that  sort  of  thing  are  the  peo- 
ple who  have  no  regard  for  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States.  We  already  have  a  uniform  divorce 
law.  The  law  on  this  subject  in  Virginia  is  uni- 
form over  the  whole  territory  of  Virginia.  If  Mis- 
souri or  Nevada  choose  to  enact  bad  laws  on 

lie 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  117 

this  subject,  that  is  their  error,  not  ours.  If 
anything  on  this  subject  were  proposed,  it  would 
be  in  the  nature  of  a  resultant  of  the  conflicting 
views  of  many  States  with  laws  much  worse  than 
ours;  and  the  effect  would  probably  be  to  leave 
ours  in  a  worse  state  than  they  now  are.  This 
matter  of  marriage  and  divorce  is  one  of  the 
highest  possible  expressions  of  the  full  power 
of  the  several  States  to  legislate  as  they  deem 
best;  and  they  would  act  most  unwisely  if  they 
were  practically  to  delegate  this  important  part  of 
their  rights  to  Congress,  or  even  to  a  majority 
of  themselves.  It  is  better  policy  for  the  State 
of  Virginia  to  keep  out  of  this  movement  for 
uniformity  on  any  and  all  subjects.  We  have 
much  more  to  lose  than  to  gain  by  it.  The  plan 
will  always  be  to  have  us  adopt  the  views  of 
some  one  else.  If  they  desire  uniformity,  they 
can  copy  our  statutes.  They  can  get  in  that  way 
a  uniformity  we  would  not  object  to.  South 
Carolina  allows  no  divorce.  We  doubt  if  that 
would  be  the  uniform  law  which  the  Western 
States  would  want.  No  more  do  we  really  want 
their  laws.  Because  the  men  in  the  West  have 
torn  the  domestic  relations  to  pieces  is  no  good 
reason  why  we  in  the  East  and  South  should  do 
the  same. 

Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  too  much  to  say  that, 
modeled  on  the  basis  of  these  recent  laws,  this 
institution  is  no  longer  Christian  marriage.  It 


n 8  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

is  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  Church  as  well  as  to  the  experi- 
ence and  judgment  of  mankind  since  the  dawn  of 
history. 

In  discussing  this  subject,  which  is  as  broad 
as  the  scattered  habitations  of  the  race,  as  deep 
as  human  nature,  and  as  old  as  mankind, — a  re- 
lation fraught  with  all  the  possibilities  which  can 
affect  the  life  of  man  or  woman, — it  should  not 
be  lost  sight  of  that  it  has  ever,  even  at  best, 
been  regarded  by  thinking  men  of  antiquity  as 
well  as  those  of  the  present  day  as  being  beset 
with  inherent  difficulties. 

Even  under  the  former  system  of  law,  by  which 
order  was  recognized  as  essential  and  so  was  se- 
cured, or  at  least  attempted  to  be  secured  as 
far  as  possible  by  the  rules  which  regulated  it, 
marriage  has  been  presented  to  us  as  a  more  or 
less  difficult  relation.  Here  is  what  has  been  said 
of  it  by  some  of  the  thinkers  of  the  race : 

Solomon  says:  "It  is  better  to  dwell  in  the 
wilderness  than  with  a  contentious  and  an  angry 
woman."  And  again:  "It  is  better  to  dwell  in 
the  corner  of  the  housetop  than  with  a  brawling 
woman  and  in  a  wide  house."  And  still  again : 
"For  three  things  the  earth  is  disquieted, 
for  an  odious  woman  when  she  is  mar- 
ried." 

Socrates,  being  asked  whether  it  were  better 
to  marry  or  not,  replied:  "Whichever  you  do, 
you  will  repent  it." 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  119 

Plutarch  preserves  a  saying  of  Pittacus: 
"Every  one  of  you  hath  his  particular  plague, 
and  my  wife  is  mine;  and  he  is  happy  who  hath 
this  only." 

"He  (Thales)  was  reputed  one  of  the  wise 
men  that  made  answer  to  the  question  when  a 
man  should  marry;  a  young  man  not  yet,  an 
elder  man  not  at  all."  — Bacon. 

"There  is  scarcely  a  lawsuit  unless  a  woman 
is  the  cause  of  it."  — Juvenal. 

"Is  not  marriage  an  open  question,"  asks  Mon- 
taigne, "when  it  is  alleged,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  that  such  as  are  in  the  institution  wish 
to  get  out,  and  such  as  are  out  wish  to  get  in?" 

"Marriage  and  hanging  go  by  destiny,"  says 
Burton. 

"Oh,  curse  of  marriage,  that  we  can  call  these 
delicate  creatures  ours,  and  not  their  appetites," 
says  Shakespeare. 

"Marriage  is  a  desperate  thing,"  says  Selden. 

"The  reason  why  so  few  marriages  are  happy 
is  because  young  ladies  spend  their  time  in  mak- 
ing nets,  not  in  making  cages."  — Swift. 

"Thus  grief  still  treads  upon  the  heels  of 
pleasure,  Married  in  haste,  we  may  repent  at 
leisure,"  remarks  William  Congreve. 

Bacon  says:  "He  that  hath  wife  and  children 
hath  given  hostages  to  fortune;  for  they  are  im- 
pediments to  great  enterprises,  either  of  virtue  or 
mischief." 


120          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

Balzac  has  much  to  say  on  this  subject.  "Mar- 
riage must  incessantly  contend  with  a  monster 
which  devours  everything,  that  is,  familiarity.'* 
"Marriage  is  a  science.  A  man  ought  not  to 
marry  without  having  studied  anatomy,  and  dis- 
sected at  least  one  woman."  uTo  contend  ad- 
vantageously with  the  tempest  which  so  many 
attractions  tend  to  raise  in  the  heart  of  his  wife, 
a  husband  ought  to  possess,  besides  the  science  of 
pleasure  and  a  fortune  which  saves  him  from  sink- 
ing, .  .  .  robust  health,  exquisite  tact,  consid- 
erable intellect,  too  much  good  sense  to  make  his 
superiority  felt,  excepting  on  fit  occasions,  and 
finally  great  acuteness  of  hearing  and  sight. 
Even  when  equipped  with  these  ad- 
vantages, a  husband  enters  the  lists  with  scarcely 
any  hope  of  success." 

"  'Early  marriages  were  misery;  imprudent 
marriages  idiotism,  and  marriage  at  the  best/  he 
was  wont  to  say,  with  a  kindling  eye,  and  a 
heightened  color,  'marriage  at  the  best, — was  the 
devil.' "  — Lytton. 

"Marriage — monotony  multiplied  by  two,"  ac- 
cording to  George  Meredith. 

"Wedlock's  a  saucy,  sad,  familiar  state, 
Where  folks  are  very  apt  to  scold  and  hate." 

— Pindar. 

"Courtship  to  marriage  is  a  very  witty  pro- 
logue to  a  very  dull  play."  — Congreve. 
"Marriage  is  a  desperate  thing.    The  frogs  in 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  121 

were  extremely  wise;  they  had  a  mind  to 
some  water,  but  they  would  not  leap  into  a  well 
because  they  could  not  get  out  again." 

— John  Selden. 

"Marriage  is  a  step  so  grave  and  decisive  that 
it  attracts  light-headed,  variable  men  by  its  very 
awfulness."  — R.  L.  Stevenson. 

"It's  the  silliest  lie  a  sensible  man  like  you 
ever  believed,  to  say  a  woman  makes  a  house 
comfortable."  — George  Eliot. 

"Marriage  is  a  field  of  battle,  and  not  a  bed 
of  roses."  — Stevenson. 

"What  courage  can  withstand  the  ever-dur- 
ing  and  all-besetting  terrors  of  a  woman's 
tongue?"  — Irving. 

"Death  itself,  to  the  reflecting  mind,  is  less 
serious  than  marriage."  — Landor. 

"Debt  leads  man  to  wed,  and  marriage  leads  to 
debt."  —Kipling. 

"After  forty,  men  have  married  their  habits, 
and  wives  are  only  an  item  in  the  list,  and  not  the 
most  important."  — George  Meredith. 

"A  second  marriage  is  the  triumph  of  hope 
over  experience."  — Dr.  Johnson. 

"Marriage  is  a  feast  where  the  grace  is  some- 
times better  than  the  dinner."  — Colton. 

"Needles  and  pins,  needles  and  pins, 

When  a  man  marries,  his  trouble  begins." 

—Old  Proverb. 

"There  is  probably  no  other  act  of  a  man's 


122  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

life  so  hot-headed  and  foolhardy  as  this  one  of 
marriage."  — Stevenson. 

"They  saw  two  men  by  the  roadside  sit, 
And  they  both  bemoaned  their  lot, 
For  one  had  buried  his  wife,  he  said, 
And  the  other  one  had  not."  — John  Hay. 
"They  (the  men)  know  they  are  only  human 
after  all;  they  know  what  gins   and  pitfalls  lie 
about  their  feet,  and  how  the  shadow  of  matri- 
mony waits  resolute  and  awful  at  the  crossroads. 
They  would  wish  to  keep  their  liberty,  but  that 
may  not  be ;  God's  will  be  done."    — Stevenson. 

"If  marriage  licenses  were  sold  with  a  return 
coupon  ticket  attached,  and  there  were  a  stop- 
over station  anywhere  in  the  early  stages  of  the 
journey,  few  would  make  the  through  trip." 

— Dorothy  Dix. 

"Idleness,  which  is  often  becoming,  and  even 
wise  in  a  bachelor,  begins  to  wear  a  different 
aspect  when  you  have  a  wife  to  support." 

— Stevenson. 

"What  they  do  in  Heaven  we  are  ignorant  of; 
what  they  do  not,  we  are  told  expressly;  they 
neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage." 

—Swift. 

"To  be  without  a  wife  .  .  .  would  be 
about  as  conducive  to  happiness  as  to  be  dead. 
Negative  happiness,  very  negative.  Negative 
happiness  is  better  than  positive  discomfort." 

— F.  Marion  Crawford. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  123 

.  "Marriage  from  love,  like  vinegar  from  wine, 
A  sad,  sour,  sober  beverage. " 

— Byron. 
uHo !  pretty  page,  of  the  dimpled  chin, 

All  you  wish  is  woman  to  win; 
This  is  the  way  that  boys  begin. 
Wait  till  you  come  to  forty  years." 

— Thackeray. 

"Marriage  is  so  unlike  everything  else.  There 
is  something  even  awful  in  the  nearness  it 
brings."  — George  Eliot. 

"Honest  men  marry  young,  wise  men  never." 

—Old  Proverb. 

"It  is  very  beautiful  to  be  in  love,  but  it  is 
a  great  relief  to  be  out  of  it." — R.  W.  St.  Hill. 

"Oh!  how  many  torments  lie 
In  the  small  circle  of  a  wedding  ring." 

— Colley  Gibber. 

"Marriage,  which  is  the  bourne  of  so  many 
narratives,  is  still  a  great  beginning,  as  it  was 
to  Adam  and  Eve,  who  kept  their  honeymoon 
in  Eden,  but  had  their  first  little  son  among  the 
thorns  and  thistles  of  the  wilderness." 

— George  Eliot. 

"I  consulted  him  of  marriage;  he  tells  me  of 
hanging,  as  if  they  went  by  one  and  the  same 
destiny."  — Ben  Jonson. 

"The  life  of  an  intelligent  bachelor  is  very 
well  worth  living."  -Max  O'Rell. 

"Woman  has  always  managed  to  make  man 
provide  for  her;  .  .  .  under  the  pretext  of 


i24          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

giving  him  the  upper  hand,  she  has  left  him  all 
the  anxiety  and  responsibility." 

— John  Davidson. 

"I'd  rather  be  married  in  October  than  any 
other  time  of  the  year,  if  I've  got  to  be.     It's 
kind  of  melancholy  then,  and  one  sees  everything 
goin'  to  pieces,  and  don't  mind  what  he  does." 
— Hezekiah  Butterworth. 
"  'Well,   Madeline,   so   I'm  going  to  be  mar- 
ried,' Bertie  began. 

"  'There's  no  other  foolish  thing  left  that  you 
haven't  done,'  said  Madeline,  'and  therefore  you 
are  quite  right  to  try  that.' '  — Trollope. 

"A  young  man  married  is  a  man  that's 
marred."  — Shakespeare. 

"A  bachelor 

May  thrive  by  observation  on  a  little, 
A  single  life's  no  burden;  but  to  draw 
In  yokes  is  chargeable,  and  will  require 
A  double  maintenance." 

— John  Ford. 

"Times  are  changed  with  him  who  marries; 
there  are  no  more  by-path  meadows,  wherein  you 
may  innocently  linger,  but  the  road  lies  long  and 
straight  and  dusty  to  the  grave." — Stevenson. 

"  'I  know  not,'  said  the  princess,  'whether  mar- 
riage be  more  than  one  of  the  innumerable  modes 
of  human  misery.' '  — Dr.  Johnson. 

"Make  'im  take  'er,  an'  keep  'er;  that's  Hell 
for  'em  both."  — Kipling. 

"When  we   are   born   our  mothers   will   take 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  125 

care  of  us,  and  when  we  die  our  Father  will 
take  care  of  us.  But  when  we  marry  we  must 
take  care  of  ourselves  and  another  besides." 

— Lavinia  Hart. 
"Pleasant  the  snaffle  of  courtship;  improving  the 

manners  and  carriage; 

But  the  colt  who  is  wise  will  abstain  from  the 
terrible  thorn-bit  of  marriage." 

— Kipling. 

"If  ever  you  feel  disposed,  Samivel,  to  go 
a-marrying  anybody — no  matter  who — just  you 
shut  yourself  up  in  your  own  room,  if  you've  got 
one,  and  poison  yourself  offhand."  — Dickens. 

"Once  you  are  married  there  is  nothing  left 
for  you,  not  even  suicide,  but  to  be  good." 

— Stevenson. 

"Ne'er  take  a  wife  till  thou  hast  a  house,  (and 
a  fife)  to  put  her  in."  — Poor  Richard. 

"It's  an  impious,  unscriptural  opinion  to  say 
a  woman's  a  blessing  to  a  man  now." 

—George  Eliot. 

"The  moment  a  woman  marries,  some  terrible 
revolution  happens  in  her  system;  all  her  good 
qualities  vanish,  presto,  like  eggs  out  of  a  con- 
juror's box.  'Tis  true  that  they  appear  on  the 
other  side  of  the  box,  but  for  the  husband  they 
are  gone  forever."  — Bulwer. 

"An  object  in  possession  seldom  retains  the 
same  charm  it  had  in  pursuit,"  says  Pliny  the 
Elder. 

"The  gout  is  a  disease  as  arises  from  too  much 


126  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ease  and  comfort.  If  ever  you're  attacked  with 
the  gout,  Sir,  just  you  marry  a  widow  as  has  got 
a  good  loud  voice,  with  a  decent  notion  of  usin' 
it,  and  you'll  never  have  the  gout  again.  It's 
a  capital  prescription,  Sir;  I  takes  it  reg'lar,  Sir, 
and  I  can  warrant  it  to  drive  away  any  illness  as 
is  caused  by  too  much  jollity."  — Dickens. 

Stevenson,  after  some  very  severe  observations 
intended  to  show  that  women  may  be  at  heart 
very  different  from  what  their  fair  exteriors  and 
ordinary  habits  would  indicate,  concludes  by  say- 
ing that  the  doctrine  "of  the  excellence  of  women, 
however  chivalrous,  is  cowardly  as  well  as  false. 
It  is  better  to  face  the  fact,  and  know,  when  you 
marry,  that  you  take  into  your  life  a  creature  of 
equal,  if  of  unlike  frailties;  whose  weak  human 
heart  beats  no  more  tunefully  than  yours." 

History  abundantly  proves  the  truth  of  this 
conclusion.  Along  with  the  host  of  bright  and 
shining  women,  whose  characters  have  adorned 
the  annals  of  the  race,  and  who  have  been  an 
inspiration  to  the  generations  which  followed 
them,  there  has  been  a  vast  number  of  other 
women,  who  have  been  as  bad,  as  unwise, 
and  as  dangerous  political  leaders  as  any  one 
could  be.  Now,  the  men  have  to  live  with  the 
one  class  as  well  as  with  the  other.  The  laws 
should  therefore  be  so  conceived  as  to  ensure 
a  reasonable  modus  vivendi  as  to  all.  They  are 
now  apparently  drawn  on  the  theory  that  the  men 
are  all  bad  and  the  women  all  good. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  127 

A  few  conspicuous  and  well-known  examples 
will  suffice  for  illustration  to  show  that  such  has 
never  been,  and  is  not  now,  the  case.  Consider 
then: 

Rebekah,  wife  of  Isaac,  who,  a  good  woman 
and  wife  in  other  respects,  yet  planned  the  fraud 
which  was  practiced  upon  him,  by  which  he  was 
led  to  bestow  upon  Jacob  the  blessing  which  be- 
longed to  Esau. 

The  wife  of  Potiphar,  captain  of  Pharoah's 
guard,  who  so  unjustly  caused  the  disgrace  and 
the  imprisonment  of  Joseph. 

Jezebel,  the  wife  of  Ahab,  King  of  Israel,  who 
murdered  Naboth,  in  order  to  take  his  vineyard 
from  him,  and  who  slew  the  prophets  of  the 
Lord. 

Herodias,  the  wife  of  Herod,  tetrarch  of 
Galilee,  who  had  John  the  Baptist  beheaded,  be- 
cause he  denounced  the  life  of  sin  in  which  she 
was  living. 

Helen,  wife  of  Menelaus,  King  of  Sparta, 
whose  elopement  with  Paris,  the  son  of  Priam, 
King  of  Troy,  brought  on  the  war  which  ended 
in  the  destruction  of  that  city. 

Clytemnestra,  the  unfaithful  wife  of  Agamem- 
non, King  of  Mycenae,  who  murdered  him  upon 
his  return  from  Troy. 

Medea,  daughter  of  the  King  of  the  Colchians, 
and  wife  of  Jason,  who,  from  jealousy,  murdered 
Creusa ;  and  plotted  against  the  life  of  Theseus. 

The  wife  of  Polydectes,  King  of  Sparta,  who 


128  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

after  the  death  of  her  husband  proposed  to 
Lycurgus,  his  younger  brother,  the  heir  apparent 
to  the  throne,  to  destroy  the  life  of  her  unborn 
child,  on  condition  that  he  would  marry  her,  and 
allow  her  to  share  the  kingdom  with  him. 

The  stepmother  of  Croesus,  who  gave  poison 
to  the  breadmaker  so  that  her  stepson  might  die, 
and  be  removed  from  the  succession  of  his  father's 
throne,  in  order  that  one  of  her  children  might 
reign.  The  faithful  breadmaker,  however,  gave 
the  poison  to  the  queen's  own  children  instead. 

Olympias,  the  mother  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
who  is  believed  to  have  been  instrumental  in  the 
assassination  of  her  husband,  Philip,  King  of 
Macedon,  and  who,  to  satisfy  her  rage  against 
her  dead  opponent,  Antipater,  murdered  Nicanor, 
his  son,  and  about  a  hundred  of  his  relatives  and 
friends.  She  even  tore  from  the  tomb  the  dead 
body  of  another  son,  in  order  to  dishonor  it,  and 
then  murdered  Philip,  Alexander's  half-brother, 
and  his  wife,  Eurydice. 

Tarpeia,  who  agreed  to  betray  the  city  of  Rome 
to  the  Sabines  for  the  sake  of  their  bracelets  and 
rings.  They  threw  their  shields  upon  her  instead, 
and  killed  her. 

Cleopatra,  Queen  of  Egypt,  who  murdered  her 
brother,  caused  her  sister  to  be  put  to  death,  and 
lived  with  Caesar  and  Anthony  in  open  infamy. 

Agrippina,  the  wife  of  the  emperor  Claudius, 
who  poisoned  her  husband,  in  order  to  raise  her 
son,  Nero,  to  the  throne. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  129 

Lucretia  Borgia,  the  sister  of  Caesar  Borgia, 
who  has  been  credited,  or  discredited,  with  nearly 
every  offense  which  a  woman  could  commit. 

The  sister  of  Kenelm,  the  Anglo-Saxon  King, 
for  whom  she  was  acting  as  regent,  who  had  him 
murdered  in  order  to  possess  herself  of  his 
throne. 

Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  who  consented  to  the 
murder  of  her  husband,  Darnley,  and  then  mar- 
ried his  assassin. 

The  Princess  Sophia,  of  Russia,  who  attempted 
the  assassination  of  her  half-brother,  Peter  the 
Great,  in  order  to  retain  the  power  which  she  en- 
joyed under  the  reign  of  her  brother  John.  Al- 
though the  crown  had  been  left  to  Peter,  she 
kept  him  for  a  while  out  of  his  kingdom,  by  a 
revolution  which  caused  the  death  of  many  per- 
sons, and  then  tried  to  kill  him. 

Catharine  II,  of  Russia,  who  with  the  aid  of 
her  lover  dethroned  her  husband,  then  probably 
murdered  him,  and  shocked  the  world  with  her 
vices. 

Isabella,  Queen  of  Castile,  wife  of  Ferdinand, 
King  of  Aragon,  who,  although  an  exemplary 
woman  in  most  respects,  yet  authorized  the  es- 
tablishment of,  and  maintained,  what  we  know  as 
the  Spanish  Inquisition,  one  of  the  grossest  abuses 
which  ever  disgraced  or  afflicted  humanity,  and 
which  condemned  men  to  unheard  of  tortures  and 
death,  because  of  religious  belief.  Persons  were 
even  convicted  after  their  death,  and  their 


130          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

bodies  torn  from  their  graves  and  burnt  with  the 
living.  The  wars  which  grew  out  of  this  perse- 
cution convulsed  Europe  for  a  century. 

Margaret  of  Anjou,  wife  of  Henry  VI,  of  Eng- 
land, who,  although  a  good  wife  and  mother, 
showed  in  the  hour  of  her  triumph,  after  the 
battle  of  Wakefield,  such  cruelty  and  ferocity 
toward  her  enemies  as  to  cause  the  revival  and 
continuation  of  the  War  of  the  Roses,  which 
devastated  the  land. 

Catharine  de  Medici,  mother  of  Charles  IX,  of 
France,  who,  besides  other  enormities,  instigated 
the  perpetrators  of  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholo- 
mew, during  which  one  hundred  thousand  persons 
were  murdered. 

The  Marchioness  de  Pompadour  and  the  Coun- 
tess du  Barry,  the  mistresses  of  Louis  XV,  who 
were,  possibly,  as  much  responsible  as  any  other 
two  persons  for  sowing  the  seeds  which  brought 
upon  France  its  revolution. 

Marie  Antoinette,  the  wife  of  Louis  XVI,  of 
France,  who  was  noble  and  brave  to  the  highest 
degree,  and  a  good  mother  and  wife,  but  who, 
by  her  many  indiscretions,  want  of  tact,  and  lack 
of  judgment,  made  herself  the  storm-center  and 
chief  object  of  the  hatred  of  the  populace,  and 
more  than  any  other  one  person,  was  the  cause 
of  this  revolution,  the  most  appalling  calamity 
which  is  recorded  on  the  pages  of  history,  and 
which  involved  Europe  in  wars  which  lasted  a 
generation. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  131 

The  knitting  women  who  sat  at  the  foot  of  the 
guillotine,  and  gloated  over  the  deluge  of  blood 
poured  out  during  this  French  revolution. 

Let  not  the  distance  in  point  of  time,  nor  the 
remoteness  of  the  countries  in  which  many  of 
these  women  lived  diminish  the  significance  of 
their  actions.  Time  and  place  have  little  or  no 
effect  in  changing  human  nature.  Ambition,  pas- 
sion, hatred,  avarice,  selfishness,  love,  and  jeal- 
ousy are  primordial  forces  which  have  ever 
swayed  the  human  heart,  and  these  characters  il- 
lustrate the  power  of  their  influence  upon  the 
women  of  the  world  of  to-day  as  truthfully  as  the 
events  recorded  in  the  morning's  paper. 

We  will  stop  here.  The  melancholy  list  of 
course  could  be  continued  still  further,  and  will 
probably  be  added  to  by  to-morrow's  newspapers. 

True  enough,  the  day  after  the  above  was 
written,  the  morning  paper  brought  the  follow- 
ing: 

"Paris,  December  8. — The  most  hideous  white 
slave  scandal  in  the  history  of  Paris  has  been  dis- 
covered, according  to  the  Prefect  of  Police,  who 
declared  to-day  he  has  evidence  which  proves  that 
more  than  three  hundred  girls,  ranging  from  nine 
to  seventeen  years,  have  been  sold  by  their 
mothers. 

"V.  F.  G.  A.,  and  other  rich  men  are  impli- 
cated, according  to  the  police.  F.,  now  in  jail, 


132  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

until  recently  was  editor  of  the  Lantern,  a  gov- 
ernment organ.  He  formerly  was  a  friend  of 
ex-Premier  B.  and  other  officials,  and  owned 
chateaus  in  various  parts  of  France.  The  wild- 
est orgies  in  which  mere  children  took  part  are 
said  to  have  been  held  at  F.'s  beautiful  dwellings." 

From  the  days  of  Mother  Eve  down  to  those 
of  our  own  times  the  works  of  the  evil  one  have 
been  made  sadly  manifest  in  the  case  of  poor 
sister  woman  as  well  as  in  that  of  her  brother 
man.  The  assumed  attitude  of  superiority  now 
observable  on  the  part  of  some  women  toward 
men  is  a  poor  return  for  the  consideration  and 
the  generally  indulgent  and  flattering  attitude  with 
which  the  men  of  the  western  hemisphere  have 
treated  their  women.  This  element  among  the 
women  has  misunderstood  and  abused  this  con- 
sideration shown  them,  and  has  enlarged  the 
"better  half"  idea  into  thinking  that  they  are  in- 
tellectually and  morally  man's  superiors.  They 
have  listened  to  words  of  flattery  so  long  that  it 
has  spoiled  them,  and  has  given  them  an  unduly 
enlarged  idea  of  their  real  position  in  the  scheme 
of  creation. 

Viewed  as  a  class,  women  are  not  showing  off 
particularly  well  under  the  new  order  of  things. 
They  are  losing  their  accomplishments  together 
with  the  softer  and  sweeter  graces  which  were 
formerly  their  own, — in  short,  the  femininity 
which  made  them  so  much  admired  and  be- 
loved,— and  are  substituting  for  it  self-assertion 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  133 

and  Amazonian  qualities,  which  may  finally  cause 
to  perish  from  the  earth  the  regard  in  which  they 
were  formerly  held  and  all  the  dear  associations 
clustering  around  the  ideas  of  wife  and  mother 
and  home.  It  is  fair  for  men,  in  considering 
these  things,  to  ask  themselves  whether  they  will 
further  encourage  a  movement  which  will  deprive 
them  of  the  domestic  happiness  which  once  was 
found  in  the  home,  and  substitute  for  it  the  dis- 
graceful scenes  of  strife  and  disorder  which  so 
often  are  pictured  on  the  stage,  in  the  moving- 
picture  shows,  in  the  police  courts  and  the  papers. 
If  the  situation  be  bad  now,  it  promises  to  be 
infinitely  worse  with  women  voting. 

Suppose  it  should  get  so  bad  that  all  the  hus- 
bands are  hunted  down  and  chased  off  the  face 
of  the  earth, — what  then?  Will  we  make  a  desert, 
and  call  it  peace?  "Down  with  the  tyrant  man," 
will  involve  down  with  a  good  many  other 
things, — down  with  husbands,  down  with  fathers, 
down  with  home,  down  with  children,  down  with 
all  domestic  order.  If  this  be  an  age  and  land  of 
freedom,  if  everybody  should  be  released  from 
constraint  and  set  at  liberty,  why  are  not  these 
so-called  blessings  to  enure  to  the  benefit  of  the 
whole  population?  Why  should  not  that  very 
large  and  important  number  of  human  beings, 
known  as  husbands  and  fathers,  also  share  in  this 
freedom?  As  matters  stand  they  are  not  only  not 
included  in  it,  but  they  are  reduced  to  a  new,  but 
none  the  less  real,  though  refined,  form  of  slav- 


i34          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ery.  We  do  not  believe  in  nor  in  any  way  advo- 
cate a  system  of  general  laxity,  nor  the  breaking 
asunder  of  the  bonds  which  unite  families ;  but  we 
call  attention  to  the  amazing  spectacle  presented 
to  the  world  of  a  domestic  system  in  which  the 
head  of  the  family  has  less  rights  than  anybody 
else. 

The  word  slavery  has  not  been  used  unad- 
visedly. The  severe  punishment  and  disgrace  of 
being  immured  in  the  public  prison,  or  of  being  in 
chains,  condemned  to  the  public  roads,  is  inflicted 
on  the  husband  who,  living  in  a  city  of  over  fifteen 
thousand  inhabitants,  escapes  from  his  wife, — 
that  is,  "leaves  the  city,"  as  the  statute  describes 
it;  or,  living  anywhere  within  the  State,  who  es- 
capes from  her,  or  "deserts"  her,  as  the  statute 
calls  it,  she  being  in  destitute  or  necessitous  cir- 
cumstances. The  same  punishment  is  to  be  inflicted 
upon  him  if,  under  corresponding  conditions,  he 
do  not  work  for  his  wife, — that  is,  if  he  "neglect 
to  provide  for  the  support  of  his  wife."  What 
essential  feature  of  slavery  is  lacking  under  these 
conditions,  except  the  assignabllity  of  the  slave? 
He  cannot  leave  without  being  liable  to  arrest. 
A  new  form  of  what  we  might  call  the  fugitive 
slave  law  applies  to  this  offense.  He  cannot  stop 
working,  and  must  work  successfully,  profitably 
to  his  mistress,  to  prevent  being  arrested  for  non- 
support.  Is  not  the  primary  fact  in  connection 
with  slavery  the  compulsory  work  of  one  person 
for  the  benefit  of  another,  and  is  not  this  a  severe 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  135 

feature  of  this  particular  form  of  slavery, — the 
legal  requirement  that  the  work  result  in  a  profit? 
All  men  are  not  employees,  working  for  a  stipu- 
lated amount.  Many  are  the  independent  heads 
of  enterprises.  For  all  these,  under  such  laws, 
failure  may  mean  jail.  The  only  barrier  behind 
which  the  husband  can  protect  himself  from  the 
full  operation  of  these  drastic  laws  is  an  inde- 
pendent fortune  of  his  own,  which,  so  long  as  it 
lasts,  can  still  secure  his  liberty.  But,  should  he 
lose  this  defense  and  become,  like  the  great  ma- 
jority of  men,  dependent  upon  his  daily  work  for 
his  support,  he  becomes,  for  the  rest  of  his  life, 
or  the  rest  of  the  time  the  marriage  continues,  a 
slave.  Even  if  the  wife  should  have  means  of 
her  own,  the  rule  in  regard  to  cities  of  fifteen 
thousand  inhabitants  takes  no  account  of  this.  A 
poor  husband  could,  under  this  act,  be  imprisoned 
for  not  supporting  a  wife  who  was  rich;  and  they 
have  been  so  imprisoned  in  the  West. 

The  duties  which  the  husband  and  father  owes 
to  those  dependent  upon  him  are  thus  enforced 
by  the  government  by  the  process  of  imprison- 
ment. The  duties  they  owe  him  are  not  enforci- 
ble  in  any  way.  He  surely  does  not  owe  them 
duties,  and  they  owe  him  none.  Duties  are  cor- 
relative. If  wife  and  child  have  such  a  strong 
claim  upon  the  husband  and  father  that  his  liberty 
is  held  by  the  State  as  security  for  their  fulfilment, 
it  should  only  be  so  when  there  exists  equally 
obligatory  duties  on  their  part  toward  him.  But 


136  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

here  the  system  wholly  breaks  down,  with  the 
result  that,  burdened  with  responsibilities,  and 
with  penal  statutes  threatening  his  liberty,  the 
head  of  the  family  stands  alone  and  unprotected, 
everything  due  by  him,  nothing  due  to  him,  the 
power  of  the  State  against  him,  no  power  in  his 
favor  which  the  government  will  recognize.  We 
have  called  this  condition  one  of  slavery. 

It  is  doubtful  if  even  a  carefully  drawn  mar- 
riage contract  would  avail  to  protect  the  husband 
from  much  of  the  effect  of  these  recent  acts.  Such 
an  agreement  might  assist  materially  in  regulat- 
ing the  property  rights  of  the  husband  and  wife, 
so  that  the  husband  would  be  better  protected; 
but  it  would  still  leave  him  liable  to  be  impris- 
oned for  violating  any  of  these  criminal  pro- 
visions, which,  raising  issues  as  they  do  between 
him  and  the  Commonwealth,  could  not  be  nullified 
by  private  contracts  between  the  parties.  They 
could,  however,  still  do  much  in  the  way  of  ad- 
justing dower,  distributive  interests,  the  control 
of  children,  and,  above  all,  alimony,  a  reasonable 
sum  for  which  could,  in  the  event  of  a  divorce,  be 
validly  agreed  to  in  advance.  All  such  contracts 
the  courts  could  be  called  upon  to  uphold.  At 
least,  this  could  be  done  until  some  suffragette 
sat  upon  the  bench.  As  to  how  the  law  would 
then  be  construed  we  would  not  be  willing  to 
venture  an  opinion. 


CHAPTER  IX 

If  marriage  have  proved  a  more  or  less  difficult 
relation  in  the  past,  when  the  laws  lent  their  aid 
to  make  of  it  an  orderly  system  of  domestic  gov- 
ernment, under  these  new  laws  which  foster  dis- 
order it  may  become  an  impossible  relation. 
What  would  then  become  of  our  civilization? 

If  any  one  should  doubt  that  the  present  con- 
dition of  marriage  is  one  of  the  greatest  disorder, 
let  him  consider  the  following  news  items  which 
have  recently,  from  time  to  time,  appeared  in 
our  daily  papers. 

"Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  October  27. — A.  B.  was  fined 
twenty  dollars  this  morning,  with  the  alternative 
of  serving  twenty  days  in  the  workhouse,  because 
he  objected  to  a  snoring  and  flea-stricken  dog 
sleeping  between  him  and  his  wife.  Mrs.  B. 
had  called  the  police  and  ordered  them  to  'arrest 
that  brute.' 

"  'The  only  thing  I  did,  Judge,  was  to  say  the 

d d  dog  is  snoring,  Lizzie,  and  I  can't  sleep. 

Its  fleas  are  biting  me,  and  I  have  been  kept  busier 
than  a  one-armed  paper-hanger  with  the  hives, 
scratching  myself.  I  gave  her  to  understand  that 
no  longer  would  I  allow  that  dog  to  sleep  be- 
tween us.' 

137 


138  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"Mrs.  B.  interrupted  her  husband.  'Your 
Honor,  this  dog  is  just  like  a  human/  she  said. 
'Every  night  when  the  clock  strikes  nine,  he 
crawls  into  bed,  gets  under  the  covers,  and  sleeps 
just  like  you  would.' 

'"Keep  me  out  of  this,  please,  madam;  I  don't 
care  to  be  classified  with  a  dog,'  exclaimed  the 
Judge. 

"B.  was  unable  to  pay  the  fine." 

This  meant  that  he  got  twenty  days  in  the 
workhouse  for  objecting  in  the  way  he  did  to 
having  this  dog,  full  of  fleas,  sleeping  in  the  bed 
with  him. 

"Brownsville,  Pa.,  January  8. — During  a  quar- 
rel as  to  which  should  get  up  first  this  morning, 
X.,  aged  thirty-five  years,  a  miner,  shot  and  killed 
his  wife,  Mary,  and  then  ended  his  own  life, 
firing  a  bullet  into  his  head.  The  couple  leaves 
a  four-months'-old  child  which  was  asleep  in  the 
same  room  at  the  time  of  the  shooting." 

"Mobile,  Ala.,  December  31. — Arrested  within 
a  few  minutes  after  the  bloody  remains  of  her 
son-in-law,  Policeman  Z.,  had  been  found  in  a 
pond  near  the  western  city  limits,  Mrs.  X.  Y. 
to-night  made  a  full  confession  of  the  deed.  Z. 
had  been  shot  three  times,  twice  through  the 
head  and  once  through  the  arm. 

"The  killing  occurred  at  the  home  of  Z.  after, 
according  to  the  confession,  insulting  remarks 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  139 

were  made  to  Mrs.  Y.  As  a  result  of  the  insult 
Mrs.  Y.  says  she  saw  X.'s  gun  on  a  hall-rack, 
picked  it  up,  and  returned  to  the  room.  'I  raised 
the  pistol,  and  looking  him  straight  in  the  face, 
pulled  the  trigger.  I  thought  I  would  do  a  good 
job  while  I  was  at  it,  so  I  pulled  the  trigger 
again.' 

"Subsequently  Mrs.  Y.  took  the  body  in  a 
wagon  and  dumped  it  into  the  pond  where  it  was 
discovered. 

"Mrs.  Y.  has  been  married  three  times.  X.  Y., 
her  last  husband,  was  murdered  in  a  manner 
similar  to  the  deed  of  to-day,  but  the  grand  jury 
failed  to  indict  her.  Another  husband,  named 
Q.,  mysteriously  disappeared." 

"Detroit,  Mich.,  December  29. — Four  mem- 
bers of  one  family,  all  suing  for  divorce  at  the 
same  time,  is  the  unique  condition  of  domestic 
affairs  in  the  A.  B.  household,  in  the  village  of 
Richmond,  near  Detroit. 

"B.  himself  has  filed  a  cross  bill  against  the 
suit  instituted  against  him  by  his  third  wife, 
Anna,  a  bride  of  a  year,  while  L,  his  daughter, 
expects  a  decree  in  her  suit  against  X.  Y.  W.  B., 
a  son  of  B.,  has  also  instituted  proceedings 
against  his  wife." 

"Kansas  City,  December  31. — X.  becomes  his 
wife's  'star'  boarder,  and  the  divorce  petition  filed 
against  him  by  his  wife  was  dismissed,  by  a 


1 40          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

peculiar  arrangement  made  in  Judge  F.  D.  H.'s 
division  of  the  Wyandotte  county  district  court. 

"After  hearing  both  sides,  the  Judge  decided 
that  the  couple  should  be  able  to  make  up.  Ac- 
cordingly, he  suggested  that  the  husband  rent  the 
front  room  of  his  own  home,  and  pay  his  wife 
three  dollars  a  week  for  his  board  and  room,  and 
a  lump  sum  in  addition  of  twenty-five  dollars  a 
month. 

"In  return  the  wife  is  to  lavish  all  the  care  and 
consideration  upon  her  husband  that  she  would 
on  a  'star'  boarder,  and  the  Judge  expects  the 
cooking  of  the  'landlady'  and  her  kind  attention 
to  do  the  work  of  a  divorce  proctor. 

"X.  is  a  railroad  employee  and  lives  in  Rose- 
dale.  His  wife's  petition  charged  neglect." 

On  a  par  with  that,  is  the  following: 
"Wilmington,  N.  C.,  April  6.— The  New  Han- 
over county  commissioners  have  hired  Z.,  a  white 
man,  to  his  wife  for  six  months,  Z.  requesting 
that  arrangement  rather  than  to  serve  this  period 
on  the  county  roads,  to  which  he  was  sentenced 
yesterday  from  the  recorder's  court  on  a  charge 
of  non-support.  The  judgment  was  so  worded  as 
to  give  the  commissioners  power  to  hire  Z.  out. 
His  wife,  who  caused  his  arrest,  was  about  the 
only  one  that  wanted  him,  and  she  got  him." 

"New  York,  September  30. — Mrs.  X.  Y.,  out 
for  a  walk,  met  her  husband,  who  for  three  years 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  141 

she  had  believed  dead.  In  a  panic  he  fled.  She 
outran  him,  however,  and  turned  him  over  to  the 
police." 

"San  Francisco,  August  2. — Unable,  she  said, 
to  'make  a  man'  of  her  husband,  X.,  a  frail 
woman,  nineteen  years  old,  to-day  shot  and  killed 
him.  They  had  been  married  fifteen  months. 

"Early  to-day  X.  left  home,  saying  he  did  not 
intend  to  return.  Mrs.  X.  bought  a  revolver  and 
started  to  hunt  her  husband.  She  found  him  in 
a  saloon.  According  to  bystanders,  X.  turned  on 
her  with  a  torrent  of  abuse.  Without  a  word,  the 
wife  fired  four  shots.  One  struck  X.  and  he  died 
on  the  way  to  the  hospital.  Mrs.  X.  was  ar- 
rested. 

'  'I  do  not  see  why  I  should  be  detained/  she 
said  at  the  city  prison.  'I  did  nothing  wrong  and 
I  am  not  sorry.  Since  our  marriage  I  have  sup- 
ported my  husband  and  myself  by  working  as  a 
stenographer.  I  tried  to  make  him  stay  away 
from  saloons.  I  endured  his  abuse.  I  tried  to 
instil  some  ambition  into  him  and  coached  him 
for  the  fireman's  civil  service  examination.  He 
would  not  try.  I  could  endure  no  more.' ' 

"Kansas  City,  Mo.,  August  10. — A  husband 
can  be  too  affectionate  and  too  poetical,  according 
to  the  testimonies  of  Mrs.  Z.,  who  was  granted 
a  divorce  in  the  Circuit  Court  here  to-day. 

"  'Too  much  poetry,  too  many  kisses,  too  much 


142  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

love,  too  many  smiles,  and  too  little  work  make  an 
unfit  husband,'  she  said.  Mrs.  Z.  said  that  when 
she  married  ten  years  ago  she  was  temporarily 
blinded  by  love  and  a  deluge  of  poetry. 

"  'He  was  positively  irresistible,  but  he  would 
not  work,  Judge.  When  our  last  cent  was  gone 
he  went  to  South  Carolina,  where  he  has  an 
uncle,  who,  he  said,  had  money  and  liked  poetry 
and  wine  too.' ' 

"Chicago,  September  16. — A.  B.,  a  piano 
manufacturer,  told  Municipal  Judge  N.  to-day 
that  last  night's  was  the  first  quiet  sleep  he  had 
had  in  the  thirteen  years  he  had  been  married. 
He  was  in  jail. 

"  'We  had  been  having  a  spat,'  he  told  the 
court.  'My  wife  said  she  would  call  the  police. 
Anything  to  please  her,  I  told  her.  I'll  call  them 
myself.' 

"When  B.  reached  the  police  station  there  were 
half  a  dozen  relatives  waiting  to  bail  him  out,  but 
the  husband  refused. 

'  'It  was  the  first  time  I  ever  got  the  best  of 
my  wife,'  he  said.  Td  rather  go  to  jail  than 
listen  to  a  woman,  wouldn't  you?' 

"Judge  N.  did  not  answer,  and  B.  added,  'Oh, 
well,  you  don't  know  my  wife.' ' 

How  meaningless,  under  such  a  system,  become 
the  beautiful  lines  of  Cowper: 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  143 

"Domestic  happiness,  thou  only  bliss 
Of  Paradise  that  has  survived  the  fall." 

"Benton,  Ark.,  December  27. — Despondent, 
according  to  a  note  found  to-day,  X.,  prosperous 
farmer  and  merchant,  clubbed  his  wife,  five  chil- 
dren, and  stepson  to  death  at  his  home  near  Ben- 
ton  last  night,  and  then  hanged  himself. 

"X.'s  body  was  found  suspended  from  a  rafter 
in  a  barn  and  those  of  the  woman  and  children 
were  found  at  the  dwelling,  their  skulls  crushed. 

"H.  X.,  a  sixteen-year-old  son,  made  the  grew- 
some  discovery  when  he  returned  from  a  holiday 
celebration  on  a  neighboring  farm. 

"The  note  explains  that  'Owing  to  deep  despair 
and  that  I  see  nothing  for  me  or  my  children,  who 
I  believe  would  be  better  off  in  heaven,  I  commit 
this  act.' ' 

"Chicago,  November  28. — Mrs.  Z.  was  shot 
and  fatally  wounded  by  her  divorced  husband  to- 
day as  she  was  preparing  a  Thanksgiving  Day 
dinner  for  her  five  young  children.  Z.  then  failed 
in  an  attempt  to  commit  suicide. 

"Mrs.  Z.  was  at  a  delicatessen  store  near  her 
home  when  her  former  husband  called.  Unaware 
of  his  presence  she  returned  with  her  arms  full  of 
dainties  for  the  dinner. 

"  'Are  you  going  to  invite  me  to  your  dinner?' 
asked  the  former  husband. 


i44          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"  'No,  I'm  not,'  replied  Mrs.  Z.  The  children 
are  all  I  want.  This  is  going  to  be  a  happy 
party/ 

"Z.  then  drew  a  revolver  and  fired  three  times. 
One  of  the  bullets  struck  her  in  the  head. 

"Z.  then  turned  the  revolver  on  himself.  He 
fired  into  his  neck,  but  surgeons  said  the  wound 
would  not  cause  death." 

"Seattle,  Wash.,  March  29. — The  following 
advertisement  appeared  in  the  'Help  Wanted' 
columns  of  an  afternoon  paper  yesterday: 

'"Wanted:  A  man  to  thrash  a  wife-beater; 
ten  dollars  reward;  easy  work,  Mrs.  X.,  116  N. 
Avenue.' 

"Eight  men  applied  for  the  job  soon  after  the 
paper  was  on  the  street.  The  first  applicant  was 
a  little  fellow,  and  Mrs.  X.  sent  him  away.  The 
second,  a  big,  husky  youth,  said  it  would  be  a 
pleasure  to  do  the  work  for  five  dollars.  Mrs. 
X.  engaged  him  at  once  and  gave  him  instruc- 
tions. Her  husband  must  not  be  permanently 
disfigured  or  disabled,  but  must  be  slapped, 
choked,  knocked  down,  and  rolled  on  the  floor. 

"When  X.,  formerly  a  water  front  broker,  re- 
turned home  late  in  the  afternoon  Mrs.  X.  and 
her  'beater'  were  waiting  for  him.  Mrs.  X.  tell- 
ing the  story  to-day  said  her  young  man's  work 
was  so  excellent  that  she  compelled  him  to  take 
the  full  ten-dollar  fee. 

"X.  could  not  be  seen  to-day.  He  is  fifty-three 
years  of  age,  and  his  wife  is  about  the  same  age. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  145 

They  have  been  married  ten  years.  Before  ad- 
vertising, Mrs.  X.  had  complained  to  the  mayor, 
chief  of  police,  and  prosecuting  attorney,  without 
satisfactory  results,  she  says." 

"Dalton,  Ga.,  December  9,  1912. — Despite 
the  efforts  of  his  daughter  to  secure  possession 
of  the  shotgun,  Z.,  aged  seventy-five,  shot  and 
killed  his  son,  H.  Z.,  near  here  to-day.  Since 
separating  from  his  wife  two  months  ago  Z.  is 
said  to  have  ordered  his  son  to  stay  away  from 
the  father's  residence.  The  killing  resulted  when 
H.  Z.  entered  the  home  to-day.  Z.  is  a  Con- 
federate veteran.  He  is  under  arrest  charged  with 
murder." 

Killing  the  children  is  not  confined  to  the  hus- 
band: 

"Fort  Smith,  Ark.,  December  28. — In  a  fit  of 
insanity  resulting,  it  is  believed,  from  the  reading 
of  wild  west  and  detective  stories,  Mrs.  X., 
twenty-six  years  old,  to-day  with  an  axe  crushed 
the  heads  of  her  two  children,  A.,  two  years  old, 
and  B.,  four  months  old,  killing  them  instantly. 
The  crazed  mother  then  cut  her  throat  with  a 
razor.  She  died  to-night." 

"New  York,  August  i. — 'You  bet  your  life  I'll 
be  the  boss.' 

"Mrs.  A.  B.,  eighteen  years  old,  a  prepossess- 
ing bride  of  three  weeks,  flung  this  answer  to  her 


146          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

husband's  complaint  before  Magistrate  H.,  in  the 
Brooklyn  police  court  and  stamped  her  foot  when 
she  said  it. 

"A.,  exhibiting  a  cut  over  the  eye  and  one  be- 
hind the  ear,  had  his  wife  in  court  on  a  summons 
to  show  cause  why  she  should  not  be  charged  with 
assaulting  him.  He  said  he  just  couldn't  stand  his 
wife's  abuse.  'She  wants  to  be  the  boss,'  he  said. 

"  'Yes,  and  you  bet  your  life  I'll  be  the  boss,' 
broke  in  Mrs.  A.  'I'll  not  take  orders  from  you 
nor  any  other  man,  so  there!' 

"Magistrate  H.  placed  the  couple  in  charge  of 
the  probation  officer." 

What  a  contrast  such  a  scene  presents  to  the 
ideal  portrayed  by  Campbell : 

"Their  home  knew  but  affection's  looks  and  speech, 
A  little  Heaven,  above  dissension's  reach." 

"Worcester,  Mass.,  November  20. — A  grocery 
clerk  of  Worcester,  X.,  killed  his  wife  and  a  baby 
of  four  months,  then  killed  himself,  some  time 
last  night. 

"Two  other  children,  a  little  girl  of  thirteen 
years,  and  her  sister,  ten  years  of  age,  found  this 
morning,  on  rising,  a  note  written  by  their  father, 
in  which  he  explained  to  them  the  tragedy. 

"The  two  little  girls  attempted  to  go  into  the 
chamber  of  their  parents,  but  the  door  being 
locked,  they  could  not  get  in.  They  then  called 
the  neighbors,  who  broke  open  the  door. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  147 

"A  doctor,  who  was  called  at  once,  found  that 
the  parents  and  the  child  had  died  from  inhaling 
chloroform.  X.,  who  was  thirty-eight  years  of 
age,  had  been  employed  by  the  same  house  for 
more  than  twenty  years.  They  think  that  he  took 
his  fatal  resolution  because  of  dissensions  in  his 
household." 

"Richmond,  Va.,  December  9,  1912. — Rather 
than  pay  his  wife  six  dollars  a  week  as  he  was 
ordered  recently  to  do  when  arraigned  in  police 
court  on  the  charge  of  deserting  her,  X.  Y.  Z., 
grocer,  twenty-seven  years  old,  blew  out  his  brains 
with  a  revolver  early  to-day  in  a  stable  in  the 
eastern  section  of  the  city. 

"Besides  his  wife,  he  is  survived  by  a  baby 
boy." 

"Chicago,  111.,  April  28. — A  wife  has  a  right  to 
rob  her  husband,  according  to  a  decision  of  Judge 
Gemmill,  in  the  Municipal  Court  yesterday. 

"X.  had  his  wife  arrested  for  taking  money  by 
force. 

"  'My  wife  robbed  me  right  in  my  own  home/ 
said  X.  'She  got  a  boarder  and  her  brother  to 
help  hold  me.  Then  she  went  through  my  pockets 
and  got  eleven  dollars.' 

"Mrs.  X.  was  led  up  in  front  of  the  court's 
desk.  'Did  you  rob  him?' 

1  'Yes,  I  did,'  she  said.     'There  was  no  other 
way  to  get  money  out  of  him.     He  hasn't  given 


148  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

me  a  cent  for  over  a  year.  So  I  decided  to  rob 
him.  I  called  my  brother  and  we  held  him  and  I 
got  what  was  in  his  pockets.' 

c  'This  is  a  plain  case  of  robbery,  but  it  was 
perfectly  justifiable  under  the  circumstances,'  said 
the  court.  'The  defendant  is  discharged.  A  wife 
has  the  right  to  hold  up  her  husband  when  he 
squanders  his  wages  and  don't  give  her  enough 
for  her  support.' ' 

"New  Haven,  Conn.,  March  15. — That  Mrs. 
Z.  shot  and  killed  her  husband  at  their  home  in 
Branford  on  March  8,  their  ten-year-old  son  X. 
on  the  day  following,  and  then  inflicted  wounds 
upon  herself,  as  a  result  of  which  she  died  on 
March  13,  was  the  finding  of  the  coroner,  made 
public  to-day. 

"The  coroner  says  his  investigation  developed 
that  on  March  7  Mr.  Z.  became  aware  that  'his 
wife  was  indebted  in  large  amounts  to  a  dry  goods 
establishment  in  New  Haven,  and  also  that  she 
had  incurred  debts  to  a  considerable  amount  to 
other  parties,  and  that  he  had  expressed  his  dis- 
approval of  her  conduct  in  this  respect. 

"The  report  says  that  Mrs.  Z.,  fearing  ex- 
posure or  criminal  proceedings,  secured  a  re- 
volver and  shot  her  husband  in  the  head,  caus- 
ing instant  death.  The  following  day  she  shot 
her  son  X.  while  he  lay  in  bed,  and  then  turned 
the  revolver  on  herself." 

"Asheville,   N.    C.,    (News-Gazette). — About 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  149 

the  only  interesting  case  on  the  docket,  and  one 
with  a  human  interest  side  and  withal  amusing, 
had  to  do  with  a  charge  against  a  citizen  of 
Madison  for  abandonment  and  failure  to  sup- 
port his  wife.  The  defendant  went  into  court 
unrepresented  by  counsel;  the  wife  made  her 
statement  under  oath;  the  defendant  when  asked 
by  the  court  if  he  had  any  evidence  in  rebuttal, 
any  witnesses,  replied,  No ;  neither  did  he  care  to 
go  on  the  stand,  that  he  guessed  what  had  been 
testified  to  was  about  the  fact.  Judge  Justice, 
however,  directed  an  attorney  to  represent  the 
man,  but  his  efforts  to  induce  the  defendant  to 
put  up  any  defense  was  a  complete  failure.  The 
defendant  was  told  that  the  judge  might  send 
him  to  the  chain-gang,  but  even  this  prospective 
dire  punishment  failed  to  impress  the  alleged 
wife-deserter.  In  an  effort  to  arouse  interest  in 
his  unresponsive  client  the  attorney  went  at  him 
with  a  hot  shot, — in  effect  that  the  judge  might 
send  the  defendant  to  the  penitentiary  for  a  term 
of  five  years;  that  abandonment  and  failure  to 
provide  support  was  a  mighty  serious  thing.  At 
this  the  defendant  manifested  a  bit  of  interest, 
but  of  a  different  sort  from  what  might  have 
been  expected.  His  face  sort  of  brightened,  and 
in  reply  he  said  something  to  this  effect,  'Well, 
by  gad,  I'd  rather  go  to  the  penitentiary  for  five 
years  than  to  have  to  live  with  that  woman/ 

"That  was  a  clincher  and  all  effort  at  defense 
was  abandoned.     The  man  was   of  course  con- 


150          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

victed,  but  Judge  J.  tempered  punishment  with 
mercy;  he  neither  sent  the  man  to  the  peniten- 
tiary nor  back  to  live  with  the  wife.  Provision 
was  made  that  the  man  pay  unto  his  wife  every 
month  >a  stipulated  sum,  and  that  they  be  allowed 
to  live  apart." 

"New  York,  March  10. — 'When  I  married 
X.,'  said  Mrs.  X.  to-day  in  the  police  court,  'he 
promised  to  provide  for  me,  and  last  night  his 
pay  envelope  was  thirty  cents  short.'  Mrs.  X. 
is  a  bride  of  eight  days.  Although  she  has  a 
personal  bank  account  of  one  thousand  dollars 
which  she  refuses  to  share  with  X.,  she  hauled 
him  into  court  on  representations  that  he  had 
treated  her  cruelly. 

"  'X.  makes  twenty  dollars  a  week/  she  con- 
tinued, 'and  I  want  every  cent  of  it.  If  he  needs 
anything  I'll  get  it  for  him.  I  know  what's  due 
a  wife  and  that's  why  I  brought  him  here.' 

''Suppose  your  husband  wants  a  cigar?'  sug- 
gested the  magistrate. 

"  Til  buy  it  for  him,'  replied  Mrs.  X.  firmly." 

"New  Orleans,  March  25. — B.,  fifty,  a  wealthy 
society  leader  here,  shot  and  fatally  wounded  his 
wife  to-day,  seriously  wounded  his  daughter  A., 
fourteen,  and  a  six-year-old  son,  and  then  killed 
himself. 

"The  quarrel  that  led  up  to  the  tragedy  is 
said  to  have  occurred  Thursday  night.  Z.,  presi- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  151 

dent  of  the  F.  P.  Company,  a  son-in-law  of  B., 
is  said  to  have  refused  jestingly  to  permit  B.  to 
accompany  the  family  to  a  theater. 

"B.  left  in  a  rage  and  when  the  family  re- 
turned is  said  to  have  fired  at  them,  but  no  one 
was  hurt.  The  community  was  aroused  by  the 
screams  of  the  B.  family  and  the  sounds  of  the 
shots." 

"In  granting  a  separation  to  Mrs.  A.,  of 
Mount  Vernon,  from  her  husband,  A.,  with  three 
hundred  dollars  monthly  alimony,  Supreme  Court 
Justice  M.  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  is  not 
enough  for  a  man  to  provide  well  for  his  wife 
and  be  kind  sometimes.  He  intimated  that  a  hus- 
band should  always  be  considerate.  He  said: 

'  'The  plaintiff  is  a  frail,  sensitive,  and  nervous 
woman;  the  defendant  is  a  strong,  healthy,  vigor- 
ous man,  with  a  violent  temper.  In  language  and 
manner  he  was  at  times  rough  and  harsh,  al- 
though after  these  acts  he  was  kind  and  consider- 
ate. He  provided  for  her  well;  he  kept  two  serv- 
ants; he  was  kind  to  her  family  and  relatives;  he 
permitted  one  of  her  nieces  to  reside  at  times  with 
her,  but  his  conduct  toward  her  during  her  mar- 
ried life  was  such  that  the  plaintiff  was  justified 
in  her  complaint  and  in  bringing  this  action,  in 
which  she  must  be  sustained.' ' 

"Chicago,  September  28. — Z.,  who  to-day  mar- 
ried Miss  X.,  sought  to  avoid  future  domestic  in- 


152  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

felicity  by  filing  with  the  county  recorder  a  guar- 
antee to  be  as  nearly  the  model  husband  as  pos- 
sible. The  guarantee,  signed  and  witnessed  by  a 
notary,  promised: 

"  'She  may  do  as  she  pleases.  She  is  free  to  go 
and  come  when  she  likes,  to  go  with  whom  she 
chooses,  and  I  will  not  be  jealous.  I  will  not  go 
gunning  for  a  fellow  because  he  admires  her 
beauty,  and  because  she  smiles  when  he  speaks  to 
her.  I  will  not  interfere  with  any  of  her  plans. 

"  'I  will  be  kind  and  good  to  her.  I  will  give 
her  all  my  earnings,  and  it  will  be  her  privilege  to 
do  with  my  income  as  she  likes,  so  long  as  she 
feeds  me  well. 

"  When  we  have  a  surplus,  and  it  goes  to  the 
bank,  I  agree  not  to  hold  the  keys.  The  checks 
may  be  signed  by  either  of  us.  I  agree  to  come 
home  at  a  proper  hour  each  night,  or  give  her  a 
valid  excuse. 

"  'And  I  further  agree  that  I  will  let  her  get  a 
divorce  if  I  fail  to  behave  as  a  kind,  loving, 
gentle,  considerate  husband  should/ 

"When  the  guarantee  had  been  duly  placed  on 
record,  the  couple  sought  a  minister  and  were  duly 
married." 

"Chicago,  November  6. — Sentenced  to  walk 
the  floor  for  two  hours  each  night,  with  his  baby 
in  his  arms,  was  the  fate  of  X.,  arraigned  on 

"When  Judge  S.  saw  Mrs.  X.,  with  the  baby  in 
complaint  of  his  wife  for  non-support 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  153 

her  arms,  he  ordered  the  husband  to  take  the 
child.  X.  took  the  baby  while  the  mother  talked 
with  the  Judge.  The  baby's  hand  stole  up  and 
caressed  the  father's  face.  He  smiled.  The  wife 
turned  to  look  and  smiled,  too. 

"  'That's  better,'  said  the  Judge  to  X.  'X.,  I 
sentence  you  to  go  home  with  your  wife  and  walk 
the  floor  with  the  baby  for  two  hours  every  night 
from  now  until  December  20.  Besides  that,  you 
will  turn  your  wages  over  to  your  wife  every  pay- 
day. On  December  20  you  will  come  here,  and 
you  and  I  will  discuss  the  kind  of  Christmas  pres- 
ents you  are  to  buy  for  your  wife  and  baby.' ' 

"The  law  dealing  with  wife  desertion  provides 
for  the  punishment  of  men  'who  abandon  and  fail 
to  support  their  families.'  The  (and'  is  ambigu- 
ous. It  has  been  found  impossible  to  punish  men 
who  'hang  around'  their  families  and  live  on  the 
hard-earned  dollars  of  their  wives  and  children. 

"Chief  Justice  O.  will  endeavor  to  put  an  'or' 
in  place  of  the  'and'  in  the  law.  The  change  is 
necessary  and  just,  for  married  loafers  and  shirk- 
ers who  do  not  abandon  their  families  are  often 
worse  than  the  deserters. 

"But  if  the  law  is  amended  merely  to  provide 
for  the  imprisonment  of  such  loafers  the  poor 
families  will  gain  little  or  nothing.  If  the  former 
could  be  compelled  to  work  for  the  State  and  their 
earnings  were  paid  to  the  wives  a  real  reform 
would  be  achieved.  Such  proposals  have  been  made 
at  meetings  of  criminologists,  but  the  difficulties  in 


i54          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

the  way  are  enormous.  Let  us  hope  that  the 
threat  of  imprisonment  may  prove  sufficiently  de- 
terrent. " — Chicago  Record-Herald. 

"San  Francisco,  November  25. — Judge  G.  has 
divorced  A.  B.  from  B.  The  hookworm  was  the 
cause. 

"  'My  husband  was  dull,  stupid,  lazy,  languid, 
slow,'  said  Mrs.  B. 

"  'He  must  have  been  a  victim  of  the  hook- 
worm,' said  the  court. 

"Mrs.  B.  expressed  some  doubt  as  to  this  diag- 
nosis, but  Judge  G.  stuck  to  his  opinion  and 
granted  the  decree." 

Another  reported  case  contained  this  gem : 

"What's  the  charge  in  this  case?"  asked  the 
judge. 

"That's  just  what  I'm  waiting  to  find  out,  your 
Honor,"  replied  the  prisoner.  "I  had  the  satis- 
faction of  hittin'  that  woman  who's  been  the 
plague  of  my  life  these  ten  years,  under  the  name 
of  wife,  and  I'm  willing  to  pay  any  charge  in 
reason." 

See  how  differently  these  cases  are  decided 
when  they  are  appealed  to  the  higher  courts, 
where  the  judges  better  appreciate  the  effect  of 
their  decisions.  But  the  mere  fact  of  a  wife's  hav- 
ing brought  such  a  suit  as  the  following  shows 
the  demoralized  state  of  the  feminine  mind  on 
this  subject: 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  155 

New  York,  October  4. — "This  is  the  first  case 
I  ever  heard  of  where  a  woman  brings  an  annul- 
ment suit  because  her  husband  is  not  making 
enough  money,"  said  Supreme  Court  Justice  K. 
as  he  refused  a  decree  to  Mrs.  Z.,  in  her  suit 
against  her  husband,  X.  Z. 

"Mrs.  Z.  lives  with  her  mother.  She  was  mar- 
ried in  Passaic,  N.  J.,  in  July,  1908.  She  testi- 
fied that  her  husband  joined  the  (army  after  she 
had  lived  with  him  about  two  months.  She  said 
he  was  willing  to  support  her,  but  was  away  a 
great  deal,  and  his  income  was  inadequate  to  take 
care  of  a  wife.  Incidentally,  she  said,  she  was 
under  age  at  the  time  of  the  marriage. 

'  'Marriage  would  be  a  farce  if  I  granted  an 
annulment  on  this  evidence/  said  Justice  K." 

"Chicago,  December  26. — The  death  penalty 
will  be  asked  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Y.,  who  to-day 
was  placed  on  trial  charged  with  slaying  her  hus- 
band, Y.,  June  10,  last. 

"The  jury  was  completed  in  two  hours,  break- 
ing all  recent  records  in  murder  cases  in  Cook 
County.  All  of  the  jurymen  said  they  would  in- 
flict the  death  penalty  if  they  thought  the  evidence 
warranted  it. 

"Mrs.  Y.  will  plead  self-defense.  She  alleges 
her  husband  abused  her  while  intoxicated." 

"Norfolk,  December  27. — In  a  frenzy  pre- 
cipitated by  remonstrances  when  he  stamped  a 


156          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

vase  of  flowers  which  had  fallen  from  the  mantel 
shelf  in  their  home  in  P  Street,  South  Norfolk, 
X.,  twenty-eight  years  old,  an  employee  of  the 
E.  K.  Mills,  shot  and  severely  wounded  his  wife 
Christmas  Day.  His  wife  is  five  years  his  junior. 
They  have  two  children." 

"San  Francisco,  January  13. — Y.,  son  of  a 
wealthy  Brooklyn  family,  shot  and  killed  his  wife, 
X.  Y.,  well  known  in  society  here,  as  she  sat  at 
dinner  with  other  members  of  the  family  to-night. 
He  then  shot  and  fatally  wounded  himself. 

"The  couple  had  been  married  seven  months, 
and  until  a  short  time  ago  had  been  leaders  in  the 
smart  circle,  in  which  Mrs.  Y.'s  family  held  a 
high  place.  She  was  nineteen  years  old  and  her 
husband  six  years  older. 

"For  two  months  the  young  couple  lived  with 
Mrs.  Z.,  the  wealthy  grandmother  of  Mrs.  Y.,  in 
P.  Avenue.  According  to  members  of  the  family, 
Y.  and  his  wife  quarreled  ten  days  ago,  and  the 
young  husband  left  the  house  in  a  rage. 

"To-night,  when  all  the  family, — including  the 
young  wife's  mother,  grandmother,  aunt,  and 
brother, — were  at  dinner,  Y.  came  into  the  dining 
room,  apparently  happy  and  ready  for  reconcilia- 
tion. He  approached  his  wife  smiling,  kissed  her 
tenderly,  and  in  a  flash  whipped  out  two  revolvers 
and  shot  twice. 

"Both  bullets  took  effect  and  the  young  woman 
died  instantly.  Before  the  horrified  relatives 
could  move,  Y.  placed  the  muzzle  of  the  revolver 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  157 

to  his  head  and  pulled  the  trigger.  He  fell  un- 
conscious and  was  immediately  rushed  to  a  hos- 
pital, where  he  died  later. 

"The  wedding  of  the  dashing  young  woman  and 
Y.  was  one  of  the  leading  society  events  of  the 
city  last  June." 

"Lake  Providence,  La.,  January  23. — Dr.  X. 
Y.  Z.,  a  physician,  was  shot  and  killed  by  Mrs.  Z. 
to-day  in  a  sanitarium  owned  by  Z.,  shortly  after 
they  had  breakfasted  together.  Mrs.  Z.  imme- 
diately surrendered  to  the  authorities.  Mrs.  Z. 
has  so  far  made  no  statement." 

The  spectacle  of  a  wife  and  daughter-in-law 
putting  their  husband  and  father-in-law  in  bank- 
ruptcy is  presented  by  Bankruptcy  Case  No.  1412, 
in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Eastern 
District  of  Virginia,  brought  February  12,  1913. 

The  Creditor's  Petition  in  the  case  is  brought 
in  the  names  of  the  wife  and  daughter-in-law  first, 
and  the  owner  of  the  house  in  which  the  family 
lived,  who  joins  on  account  of  the  rent  which 
would  be  due  him.  The  debtor  is  alleged  in  the 
petition  to  have  lived  for  the  greater  portion  of 
six  months  preceding  the  date  of  the  filing  of  the 
petition  in  Portsmouth,  Va.  The  nature  and 
amount  of  the  petitions'  claims  are :  the  amount 
due  the  wife,  $1,000  for  money  lent  and  interest; 
and  to  the  daughter-in-law,  $50.50,  wages.  The 
petitioners  present  that  the  debtor  is  insolvent, 


158  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

and,  within  four  months  next  preceding  the  date 
of  the  petition,  committed  an  act  of  bankruptcy  in 
making  an  assignment  of  a  large  portion  of  his 
chattels  to  one  F.,  and  that  he  had  since  ab- 
sconded. The  prayer  of  the  petition  is  that  a 
subpoena  may  be  made  upon  him,  and  that  he  may 
be  adjudged  a  bankrupt.  This  petition  is  sworn 
to  by  the  wife,  the  daughter-in-law,  and  the  owner 
of  the  house. 

All  that  was  wanting  to  finish  the  picture  pre- 
sented by  this  proceeding  is  supplied  by  reading 
the  return  on  the  summons,  which  states  that  it 
was  executed  by  tacking  a  true  copy  of  it,  with 
Petition  attached,  to  the  front  door  of  the  man's 
"residence,"  a  word  used  in  the  law,  to  supplant 
the  word  home.  Should  he  return,  the  first  thing 
which  would  greet  his  eyes  would  be  this  sinister 
paper  fluttering  in  the  wind,  tacked  on  the  front 
door  of  his  home  by  the  officer  of  the  law,  acting 
on  the  orders  of  his  wife,  with  the  object  of 
putting  him  in  bankruptcy.  This  is  the  welcome 
awaiting  him. 

"Suffolk,  Va.,  March  7,  1913. — X.  Y.,  who  was 
struck  by  his  wife  with  a  big  stone  several  days 
ago,  continues  in  a  serious  condition  at  St.  An- 
drew's hospital.  The  stone,  according  to  Chief 
B.,  must  have  weighed  ten  or  eleven  pounds,  and 
the  woman,  taking  it  in  both  hands,  mauled  Y.'s 
head. 

"C.  Y.  is  still  in  jail  awaiting  developments." 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  159 

"Memphis,  Term.,  March  15,  1913. — M.  N., 
contractor,  35  years  old,  was  shot  and  probably 
fatally  wounded  by  his  wife,  Mrs.  N.,  in  their 
home  here  to-night.  N.  has  a  bullet  in  his  right 
lung,  and  his  wife,  repentant,  is  under  arrest 
pending  the  result  of  his  injuries.  She  declared  an 
intercepted  letter  to  her  husband  from  another 
woman  crazed  her." 

The  cases  of  violence  and  bloodshed  here  cited 
are  not  the  necessary  killing  of  the  men  of  one 
army  by  those  of  another,  in  order  to  accom- 
plish some  end  deemed  important  enough  to 
justify  it,  with  the  hope  that  the  result  will  be  of 
a  lasting  peace.  Far  from  it.  They  are  the 
manifestations  of  a  disorder  that  grows  greater 
every  day,  a  disorder,  the  inevitable  end  of  which 
must  be  the  firm  establishment  of  chaos  and 
anarchy  within  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  home, 
at  the  family  table,  and  >at  the  sacred  fireside. 
They  represent  the  devastation  and  ruin  of  the 
most  sacred  of  shrines,  whose  destruction  is 
enough  to  bring  upon  our  race  of  men  an  age 
darker  than  the  Dark  Ages  known  to  history. 

The  confusion  now  existing  in  the  relation  of 
husband  and  wife  is  analogous  to  the  political  con- 
fusion which  arises  in  cases  of  doubtful  or  ques- 
tionable sovereignty, — a  situation  which  naturally 
culminates  in  civil  war.  The  rules  of  domestic 
law,  which  have  come  down  to  us  through  the 
past  history  of  the  race,  have  in  the  last  few  years 


160  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

been  so  badly  shaken  and  broken  in  upon  that  in- 
stead of  there  being  the  legal  unity  of  husband 
and  wife,  with  the  acknowledged  leadership  in  the 
husband,  the  case  is  now  sometimes  stated  in  what 
is  intended  as  a  humorous  question.  Husband 
and  wife  are  one  in  law;  but  which  one?  In 
other  words,  where  is  the  sovereignty  vested? 
It  was  this  uncertainty  as  to  which  was  the  real 
sovereign,  the  State  or  the  Federal  Union,  which 
brought  on  our  civil  war.  It  was  this  question, — 
which  had  the  right  to  be  sovereign, — that  deluged 
England  with  blood  in  the  struggle  between  the 
houses  of  York  and  Lancaster;  France,  in  the 
days  of  the  Bourbons  and  Napoleon;  the  Roman 
world,  in  the  days  of  Brutus  and  Cassius,  rep- 
resenting the  Republic,  and  Octavius  Caesar,  rep- 
resenting the  rising  Empire.  No  more  dreadful 
question  can  be  asked  than  that.  Our  legislation 
has  been  so  radical  as  to  open  that  question.  The 
men  should  have  the  courage  to  answer  it,  to  an- 
swer it  promptly,  and  to  undo  the  mischief  al- 
ready done,  before  it  be  too  late.  The  temple  of 
Janus  can  never  be  closed  so  long  as  that  question 
is  open. 

Of  course  many  of  the  decisions  which  we  read 
of  in  these  cases  of  domestic  broils  do  not  properly 
represent  even  the  law  of  the  State  in  which  they 
occur. 

They  are  rendered  by  police  justices,  and 
such  other  lower  tribunals,  which  lean  to  what 
they  consider  the  popular  side  of  the  controversy, 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  161 

and  which  decide  at  once  against  the  man,  with 
little  or  no  regard  to  the  cause  of  the  trouble.  In 
particularly  shocking  cases  the  decisions  are  at 
once  spread  abroad  by  the  newspapers,  and  go 
into  every  State  in  the  Union  as  the  law  of  the 
land,  and  still  further  demoralize  the  standards 
and  the  ideas  on  the  subject  in  the  minds  of  both 
the  men  and  the  women.  The  case,  generally  in- 
volving a  man  of  limited  means,  is  not  carried  by 
appeal  to  a  higher  tribunal,  where  judges  appre- 
ciating the  effect  of  the  decision  may  pass  upon 
it. 

The  defendant,  the  unhappy  and  maltreated 
husband,  is  probably  not  even  represented  by 
counsel  in  the  lower  court.  Ignorant  of  his  rights, 
and  unwilling  or  unable  to  pay  for  legal  aid  in  his 
distress,  he  thinks  the  shortest  and  easiest  way 
out  of  the  trouble  is  to  pay  the  fine  imposed  upon 
him  by  the  justice,  or,  in  case  of  inability  to  do 
this,  to  go  to  jail  for  the  necessary  time  instead. 

Thus  the  decision,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
stands;  and  having  been  reported  all  over  the 
country  as  good  law,  is  taken  to  be  such  by  the 
millions  of  the  ill-informed  who  read  it,  and  who 
do  not  comprehend  that,  in  the  first  place,  the 
decision  was  possibly  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
the  State  in  which  it  was  rendered;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  that  if  really  law  in  that  State,  it 
does  not  follow  that  it  is  the  law  in  the  State 
where  they  live.  All  these  matters,  of  course, 
are  regulated  exclusively  by  the  laws  of  the  sev- 


1 62  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

eral  States.  The  Western  States,  by  their  fool- 
ish rules  on  this  subject,  are  demoralizing  the 
whole  country;  but  what  they  choose  to  enact  is 
only  of  force  within  their  borders,  and  we  need 
suffer  no  such  affliction  unless  our  Legislature  be 
silly  enough  to  copy  their  statutes.  But  the  aver- 
age man  is  too  ignorant  to  realize  this ;  and  when 
he  sees  in  the  paper  that  in  Chicago  a  husband 
has  been  put  in  jail  on  some  ridiculous  complaint 
on  the  part  of  his  wife  he  concludes  at  once  that 
he,  in  Virginia,  is  liable  to  be  treated  in  exactly 
the  same  way. 

Conditions  are  thus  forever  going  from  bad  to 
worse,  and  will  do  so  until  the  men  wake  up  to 
the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  and  reverse  the 
tide  which  threatens  to  overwhelm  them  with 
dire  afflictions. 

Woman's  suffrage  is  the  worst  thing  that 
could  happen  to  them,  for  the  men  of  Vir- 
ginia can  with  confidence  expect  that  if  women 
have  the  right  to  vote  every  radical  enactment 
adopted  by  any  other  State  will,  sooner  or  later, 
be  attempted  to  be  forced  upon  Virginia.  And, 
since  men  have  by  their  weakness,  indifference, 
or  apparent  willingness  to  submit  to  such  treat- 
ment encouraged  these  attacks,  the  ingenuity  of 
our  legislators  will  be  further  directed  against 
them.  A  husband  is  now  viewed  with  an  evil  eye. 
He  seems  to  have  been  placed  in  a  very  unpopular 
position.  Nothing  seems  to  be  bad  enough  for 
him.  No  one  ever  says  a  word  in  his  favor.  He 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  163 

is  a  target  to  shoot  at.  Take  him  and  kill  him, 
for  there  is  none  to  deliver. 

Husbands,  too,  need  not  suppose  that  these 
divorce  suits,  which  their  wives  have  now  learned 
to  bring  so  promptly  against  them,  involve  only 
the  separation  from  their  helpmeets.  This  sepa- 
ration they  might  be  able  to  stand,  in  some  cases, 
with  great  fortitude.  But  if  that  were  all  that 
is  to  be  obtained  by  the  divorce,  not  so  many  of 
these  suits  would  be  brought.  Probably  the  main 
object  of  the  proceeding  may  be  to  obtain  a  decree 
for  alimony,  a  decree  which,  while  giving  your 
wife  an  independent  income  at  your  expense,  may 
put  you  in  jail,  or  in  bankruptcy,  or  in  both. 

Some  of  these  decrees  for  alimony  are  exceed- 
ingly severe;  the  papers  referred  to  one  which 
ordered  a  poor  husband  to  pay  $50  a  week  out  of 
a  salary  of  $100  a  month.  Another  held  that 
the  fact  that  the  husband  had  no  money  with 
which  to  pay  alimony  was  no  excuse  for  his  not 
paying  it.  Not  to  pay  alimony,  whatever  be  the 
cause,  may  be  held  to  be  a  contempt  of  court — 
and  to  jail  you  go. 

It  has  always  been  held  that  being  a  husband 
and  the  father  of  a  family  is  the  full  attainment 
of  manhood.  The  perpetuation  of  the  State  and 
the  race  are  involved  in  this,  as  well  as  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  life  of  the  families  which  compose 
the  State.  One  would  think  that  this  were  of 
sufficient  importance  for  a  wise  public  policy  to 
hold  out  some  inducements  to  men  to  marry,  to 


1 64          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

realize  the  possibilities  of  human  nature,  and  to 
enjoy  all  the  domestic  relationships.  But,  to  the 
contrary,  the  policy  of  our  newly  enacted  laws  is 
just  the  reverse.  From  the  moment  he  leaves  the 
altar  with  his  bride  the  rules  of  law  are  now 
against  the  husband.  Everybody  in  his  family 
is  to  be  considered  before  him.  As  between  him 
and  his  wife,  everything  is  in  favor  of  her;  as  be- 
tween him  and  his  children,  everything  is  in  their 
favor,  as  opposed  to  him. 

Napoleon,  when  he  gave  the  poor  woman  the 
money  to  make  up  the  dowry  for  her  grand- 
daughter, said:  "I  want  soldiers,  and  for  that 
purpose  must  encourage  marriages."  Every  State 
should  encourage  marriages,  not  only  for  sol- 
diers, but  for  the  continuity  of  the  State  and  the 
race  itself.  If  this  great  man  could  return  to 
earth  and  take  in  charge  the  State  of  Virginia 
with  its  network  of  laws  on  this  subject,  we  can 
imagine  no  legislative  work  which  would  sooner 
command  his  attention  than  that  of  sweeping  away 
the  whole  illogical  and  ridiculous  system, — a 
system  which  is  enough  to  freeze  marriage  to 
death. 

What  wonder  is  it,  therefore,  that  men  are  be- 
ginning to  see  that  they  are  better  off  without 
the  blessings,  comforts,  and  pleasures  which  were 
formerly  understood  to  belong  to  them  as  married 
men?  A  striking  example  of  this  occurred  the 
other  day,  if  the  newspaper  account  of  it  be  cor- 
rect, Mr.  X.,  the  great  railroad  man,  and  a  multi- 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  165 

millionaire,  died,  and  as  usual  incidents  of  his  life 
were  then  brought  before  the  public.  An  ac- 
count was  given  of  the  visit  of  a  friend  to  his 
fine  estate  on  L.  I.  The  visitor  admired  the  ap- 
pointments of  the  establishment,  the  beauty  of  the 
surroundings,  and  remarked  to  Mr.  X.  that  all 
that  was  lacking  to  make  the  place  ideal  was  a 
wife.  "Wife,"  replied  Mr.  X.  sharply;  "wife  be 
d — d.  I  would  not  have  one  if  she  were  as  fair 
as  Venus,  and  as  pure  as  the  Virgin." 

As  these  ideas  grow,  marriage  however  still 
remaining  indispensable  to  the  State,  a  distinct 
tendency  has  now  shown  itself  to  drive  men  into 
marriage.  As  the  system  in  itself  presents  less 
and  less  attractions  the  men  are  to  be  propelled 
toward  it,  if  other  means  fail,  by  abuse.  Thus  we 
read  the  following  definition  of  a  bachelor,  ac- 
credited to  a  Mississippi  preacher:  UA  parasitical 
dodger,  a  solitary  satellite  around  his  own  ego, 
and  a  sluggish  human  of  exuberant  egotism." 

What  coercive  measures  may  not  become  neces- 
sary, to  keep  the  institution  in  any  degree  of 
flourishing  condition,  when  the  ideas  of  the  public 
in  regard  to  the  relation  have  become  so  de- 
moralized that  one  finds  exposed  for  sale  in  a 
reputable  art  store  a  colored,  printed  card,  in- 
tended probably  to  be  put  up  in  one's  office, 
bearing  the  words :  "Don't  tell  us  your  troubles, 
we  are  married  too?"  And,  illustrating  what  is 
meant  by  trouble,  a  picture  is  presented  of  a 
window  in  the  man's  home,  through  which,  de- 


1 66  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

picted  in  bold  silhouette,  is  seen  the  'husband  on 
his  knees,  with  both  hands  uplifted  in  agonized 
supplication  to  his  wife,  while  she  is  beating  him 
over  the  head  with  a  rolling-pin ! 


CHAPTER  X 

Among  the  better-off  the  men  are  deserted  for 
a  large  part  of  the  year.  The  wife  and  the  chil- 
dren go  off  to  a  summer  resort  for  three  or  four 
months.  The  husband  has  to  stay  at  home,  in  an 
empty  house  at  night,  and  bearing  the  heat  and 
burden  of  the  day,  at  work,  to  make  the  money 
to  keep  his  family  in  a  distant  place.  No  one  is 
at  home  to  help  him,  to  cheer  him,  to  comfort 
him.  We  have  heard  of  one  husband  who,  under 
these  circumstances,  utterly  neglected  and  alone, 
and  taken  suddenly  sick  at  night,  died,  with  no 
one  to  call  a  physician,  or  render  him  the  least 
aid. 

During  this  dreary  period  of  the  long  summer 
vacation  for  the  women  and  the  children,  which 
becomes  longer  and  longer  each  year,  the  poor 
husband  has  all  the  disadvantages  of  both  a 
married  and  a  single  man,  without  any  of  the  com- 
pensating advantages  of  either. 

;  'What  news  have  you  heard  from  your  wife?' 
asked  the  neighbor. 

4  'Nothing  except  that  she  needs  money  again,' 
replied  the  lonely  husband.'  " 

The  position  of  a  parent  will  be  made  one  de- 
gree more  miserable,  if  we  should  ever  adopt  the 

167 


1 68  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

compulsory-education  theory.  The  plan  would  be 
to  put  you  in  jail  if  you  did  not  send  your  child 
to  school.  And  you  might  at  any  time  find  your- 
self in  the  position  of  the  parent  in  one  of  the 
Western  States  for  whose  arrest  there  were  two 
warrants  out.  He  had  a  bad  son  who  would  not 
go  to  school,  so  the  father  gave  him  a  whipping 
in  order  to  make  him  go.  He  was  then  arrested 
on  the  charge  of  cruelty  to  the  child,  for  giving 
him  the  whipping;  and  also  by  the  school  authori- 
ties for  not  having  his  son  at  school. 

Another  source  of  much  misery  is  the  over- 
doing of  the  life  insurance  system.  The  poor 
husband,  having  been  despoiled  of  nearly  every- 
thing else,  has  at  least  his  life  left  him.  But  he 
is  not  left  in  peace  to  enjoy  this  last  asset,  his 
life  must  be  insured  for  the  benefit  of  his  wife, — 
in  case  anything  should  happen  to  him, — as  the 
expression  is.  Something  is  certainly  going  to 
happen  to  him  after  his  life  is  insured;  those  heavy 
premiums  are  going  to  fall  due  with  unerring  reg- 
ularity. Still  the  phrase  is  an  alluring  one, — "in- 
suring one's  life."  That  sounds  well;  we  would 
all  like  to  be  assured  of  life.  The  idea  in  the 
minds  of  the  husband  and  the  wife  is  at  first  that 
the  danger  that  hangs  over  the  household,  due  to 
the  contingency  of  the  death  of  the  husband,  the 
supporter  of  the  family,  is  neutralized  by  the  in- 
surance, and  that  both  can  thereafter  breathe  in 
peace,  that  danger  having  been  provided  against. 

So    the   first   payments    are    cheerfully   made. 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  169 

Soon  other  dues  are  payable;  the  needs  of  to-day 
have  to  be  put  aside,  to  keep  up  the  life  insurance, 
the  protection  for  the  future.  Years  pass;  the 
quotas  fall  due  with  clock-work  regularity,  money 
always  going  out,  nothing  coming  in;  expenses 
meanwhile  ever  increasing;  nothing  in  hand,  noth- 
ing put  aside  of  a  visible  and  tangible  nature, — 
all  the  faith  and  the  hope  of  the  family  centered 
in  the  life  insurance,  which  some  day  is  to  be  of 
such  great  advantage  to  them.  Probably  during 
these  years  the  husband's  earning  power  has 
diminished,  what  was  once  easily  paid  has  now  be- 
come difficult  to  pay.  However,  it  must  be  paid, 
or  a  loss  occurs;  still  nothing  coming  in,  every- 
thing going  out.  Now,  is  it  not  in  human  nature 
that  a  psychological  change  should  have  gradually 
taken  place  in  this  family  during  this  time,  and 
that  the  period  when  the  life  insurance  is  to  be  at 
last  paid  in  to  them,  and  the  payments  to  be  made 
by  them  for  it  are  to  cease,  become  a  time  to  be 
desired?  But  that  time  is  only  to  come,  in  most 
cases,  by  the  death  of  the  husband.  It  is  a  pitiable 
situation  which  is  here  presented. 

The  writer  has  seen  the  head  of  the  house  a 
veritable  sacrifice  led  to  the  slaughter,  with  his 
needy  family  hanging  around  him  waiting  for  his 
death,  all  the  family  hopes  centering  around  the 
time  when  the  wretched  victim  should  expire,  and 
the  money  for  his  death  be  collected, — the  in- 
surance for  which  so  many  thousand  dollars  had 
been  paid  out  in  premiums.  And  then  the  life  in- 


i yo  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

surance  was  contested,  and  most  of  it  lost  by 
failure  to  pay  the  last  premium.  He  has  known 
another  case  where  it  was  wholly  lost.  He  has 
heard  an  insured  husband  say  that  he  was  worth 
more  to  his  family  dead  than  alive.  The  family 
most  likely  had  found  that  out  long  before  he  did. 
So  the  change  comes  from  looking  to  the  life  in- 
surance as  a  fund  to  arise  if  the  husband  die,  to  a 
fund  which  they  will  only  reap  any  advantage 
from  when  the  husband  dies.  It  is  a  wretched 
situation,  and  one  in  which  faith  in  God  is  prob- 
ably supplanted  by  faith  in  the  life  insurance.  "I 
have  been  young  and  now  am  old,"  said  King 
David;  "yet  have  I  not  seen  the  righteous  for- 
saken, nor  his  seed  begging  bread." 

We  say  these  things  against  life  insurance  be- 
cause we  believe  it  is  a  bad  policy  for  the  in- 
dividual, as  well  as  a  bad  policy  for  the  State. 
For  the  individual,  because  there  is  this  everlast- 
ing drain  on  his  resources  to  keep  alive  an  obliga- 
tion on  the  part  of  a  distant  company  to  pay 
money  to  his  family  after  his  death.  This  money 
he  should  invest  during  his  own  lifetime.  Each 
acquisition  would  render  him  stronger,  and  it 
would  be  a  source  of  pleasure  to  him  to  see  his 
possessions  grow.  It  is  a  more  cheerful  form  of 
investment,  and  a  safer  one;  for  who  can  tell 
but  what  the  company  may  be  insolvent  when  the 
time  comes  to  pay?  Besides,  it  prevents  his 
family's  gaining  by  his  death,  which  is  an  unutter- 
ably miserable  position  for  the  head  of  a  family 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  171 

to  occupy  toward  its  members;  they  should  look 
forward  to  his  death  with  sorrow,  not  with  relief. 
If  the  premiums  were  invested  as  is  here  sug- 
gested, on  the  whole, — that  is,  in  the  vast  majority 
of  cases, — they  would  amount  to  more  than  the 
principal  of  the  insurance.  This  fact  is  proved 
by  the  enormous  surpluses  the  life  insurance  com- 
panies sometimes  pile  up.  When  a  man  who  has  in- 
vested his  money  during  his  lifetime  dies  his  family 
lose  him,  but  his  property,  already  in  the  family, 
passes  by  his  will,  or  according  to  the  law  of  de- 
scent. His  heirs  have  learned  by  experience  how  to 
manage  such  property  as  may  have  been  acquired, 
and  on  the  whole  are  in  a  much  safer  condition 
than  if  suddenly  presented  with  a  large  sum  in 
cash,  which  may  possibly  be  lost  or  squandered. 

So  far  as  our  State  is  concerned  the  life  in- 
surance system  has  few  redeeming  features.  It 
drains  the  Commonwealth  of  money  which  is  sent 
to  the  larger  cities,  where  it  forms  a  part  of  vast 
reserve  funds  which  are  used  for  the  building  up 
of  those  places  to  the  impoverishment  of  ours,  as 
of  course  on  the  whole  transactions  of  the  com- 
panies the  rates  are  made  high  enough  to  leave 
a  large  margin  of  profit.  It  would  vastly  improve 
our  condition  to  have  this  money  stay  at  home, 
and  be  used  here  for  the  building  up  of  our 
section. 

What  a  contrast  is  presented  by  this  life  in- 
surance system,  with  the  wife  possibly  looking 
forward  to  the  time  when  the  principal  will  be 


SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

collected  as  the  only  one  probable  opportunity 
that  she  will  ever  have  in  this  life  for  liberty  and 
independence,  to  the  suttee  system  which  prevailed 
in  India,  when,  in  the  event  of  the  husband's 
death,  the  faithful  wife  gave  herself  to  the  flames 
in  order  to  accompany  and  serve  him  in  the  land 
of  spirits !  His  death  meant  her  death,  not  her  in- 
dependence and  affluence.  What  a  difference  in 
the  care  and  the  treatment  a  husband  would  be 
likely  to  receive  under  these  different  systems. 
"You  die;  our  struggles  are  over,  our  self-denial 
is  over,  and  I  become  rich."  "You  die;  and  by 
the  customs  of  society  it  is  expected  that  I  die 
also.  I  will  therefore  endeavor  to  help  you  to 
live." 

If  this  thing,  instead  of  being  called  insurance 
of  life,  which  it  can  in  no  wise  prolong,  were  called 
what  it  really  is,  insurance  of  death,  which  it  no 
doubt  often  accelerates,  it  would  soon  become 
much  more  unpopular. 

"Macon,  Ga.,  December  27,  1912. — Mrs.  A., 
widow  of  the  prominent  Round  Oak,  Ga.,  planter, 
who  was  killed  near  here  December  12,  to-night 
confessed  that  she  plotted  with  B.,  a  farm  hand, 
to  kill  her  husband  so  that  she  might  marry  B. 
and  secure  $2,000  life  insurance  carried  by  her 
husband. 

"The  widow  of  the  dead  man  was  arrested 
to-day  after  B.  had  confessed  to  the  police  that  he 
shot  and  killed  A.  because  Mrs.  A.  offered  him 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  173 

$600  to  commit  the  crime,  promising  to  marry  him. 

"In  her  confession  Mrs.  A.  declared  that  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  $2,000  insurance  policy  she 
never  would  have  planned  to  kill  her  husband. 

"For  more  than  two  hours  after  her  arrest  the 
woman  refused  to  discuss  the  tragedy.  Detectives 
related  to  her  details  of  B.'s  confession,  and 
finally  she  collapsed,  crying:  'Do  you  think  God 
will  forgive  me?  Then  with  God  as  my  help,  I 
will  tell  you  all.  For  I  cannot  meet  my  God  with 
a  lie  on  my  lips.  Ask  the  people  to  have  mercy 
on  me,  not  for  myself  but  for  my  children. 

"  'Last  March/  added  Mrs.  A.,  'B.  and  myself 
were  sitting  alone  in  my  dining  room.  B.  told  me 
that  he  didn't  have  a  friend  in  the  world,  and 
patting  him  on  the  back  I  told  him  I  would  be  his 
friend.  From  that  time  on  our  relations  were 
most  intimate.  We  met  at  frequent  intervals  and 
had  signals  so  that  I  could  let  B.  know  when  my 
husband  was  away  from  home. 

1  'Had  it  not  been  for  the  $2,000  insurance  we 
would  never  have  planned  to  kill  my  husband. 
My  first  attempt  was  to  kill  him  with  strychnine. 
B.  bought  the  strychnine  and  we  put  it  in  my 
husband's  whiskey.  When  he  became  deathly  sick 
he  took  an  antidote  and  recovered. 

1  'It  was  then  that  we  planned  to  shoot  him.  B. 
told  me  that  we  would  catch  him  out  hunting  and 
kill  him  with  his  own  gun.  The  day  of  the  killing 
Mr.  A.  was  sick.  The  doctor  told  him  that  he 
should  not  eat  pork  so  he  took  his  gun  and  went 


174          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

into  the  woods  to  kill  some  birds.  He  left  home 
about  3  130  in  the  afternoon,  and  when  he  had  been 
gone  about  an  hour  B.  came.  I  told  him  my 
husband  had  gone  hunting,  and  he  said,  'Now  is 
our  time';  and  I  said,  'Yes/ 

"  'When  my  husband  did  not  return  I  knew  he 
was  dead,  and  I  sent  C.  D.  and  E.  F.,  my  son-in- 
law,  to  hunt  for  him.  After  they  had  gone  B. 
told  me  that  it  was  all  over.  We  didn't  discuss 
the  killing  until  December  17,  when  Detective  M. 
called  to  talk  with  me.  After  M.  left,  B.  told  me 
he  knew  they  suspected  him,  but  I  told  him  to 
brace  up  and  give  nothing  away,  even  if  he  was  on 
a  scaffold  with  a  rope  around  his  neck.  I  did  not 
believe  he  would  give  me  away.  When  B.  was 
arrested  I  made  up  my  mind  I  would  go  to  the 
gallows  before  I  would  tell  a  word.  Later  I  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  I  could  not  meet  my  God 
with  a  lie  on  my  lips. 

1  'I  was  a  good  Christian  woman  before  I  met 
B.,  and  had  never  done  a  wrong  in  my  life.  I 
have  been  a  member  of  the  church  for  fourteen 
years,  am  thirty-five  years  old,  and  have  six  chil- 
dren. The  oldest  is  eighteen  and  the  youngest 
four.' " 

It  is  not  the  object  of  this  work  to  make  it 
appear  that  it  would  be  well  to  establish  in 
America  the  suttee  system,  nor  the  usages  of  an- 
tiquity, nor  the  present  customs  of  the  East. 
These  are  all  as  foreign  and  ill  adapted  to  the 
ideas,  traditions,  and  usages  of  our  race  as  are 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  175 

i  •      i 

the  enactments  of  the  Legislature  passed  during 
the  last  few  years,  adopted,  as  we  believe,  with- 
out due  consideration  or  appreciation  of  their 
ultimate  effect.  What  we  think  should  be  done  is 
to  lop  off  the  excrescences  brought  about  by  these 
recent  acts  by  repealing  them,  and,  so  far  as  possi- 
ble, reestablish  the  institution  of  marriage  on  the 
basis  it  was  at  the  time  our  fathers  and  mothers 
were  married.  The  system  then  in  force  was  in 
harmony  with,  and  founded  upon,  the  rules  laid 
down  in  the  Bible.  It  was  in  accord  with  the 
genius  and  the  traditions  of  our  race  and  con- 
stitute the  well  tried  way,  the  beaten  path,  by 
which  this  race  has  progressed  throughout  the 
whole  course  of  its  history.  Under  that  system, 
the  wife  was  not  an  owned  chattel,  as  the  suf- 
fragettes would  have  people  believe. 

Martha  Washington  bore  no  such  relation  to 
General  Washington,  and  Mrs.  Lee  bore  no  such 
relation  to  General  Lee.  Indeed  the  whole  con- 
struction of  society  in  Virginia  from  the  days  of 
Washington  to  those  of  Lee,  in  regard  to  the 
dignity,  elegance,  propriety,  and  harmony  of 
domestic  life  would  compare  to  the  system  of 
turmoil  and  discord  put  into  operation  since  the 
days  of  the  latter  only  as  light  compares  to  dark- 
ness. We  are  moving,  but  it  is  not  forward  nor 
upward. 

The  wife,  under  the  system  which  we  now  seem 
bent  on  destroying  was  the  honored  consort  of  a 
man,  who  was  himself  respected  in  his  position 


176          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

as  the  natural  and  legal  head  of  the  family  group. 
He  was  respected  within  the  domestic  circle  by 
his  wife  and  his  children;  and  without,  by  society 
and  the  government.  Where  is  the  human  wis- 
dom to  be  found  which  will  improve  upon  the 
experience  of  ages  and  the  rules  laid  down  by  the 
Creator?  For  any  one  not  to  know  the  truth  of 
the  first  part  of  this  statement  would  convict  him 
or  her  of  gross  ignorance  of  the  history  and 
institutions  of  our  race.  For  anyone  not  to  believe 
the  latter  part  would  convict  him  or  her  of  dis- 
belief in  the  statements  of  the  Bible,  which  are 
as  clear  on  that  subject  as  the  revealed  word  can 
make  them.  To  adopt,  therefore,  the  views  of 
the  suffragettes  would  involve  a  determination  to 
attempt  the  reconstruction  of  society  according 
to  the  theories  of  the  ignorant,  or  of  the  unbe- 
lieving, or  of  those  who  are  both  ignorant  and 
unbelieving.  To  follow  the  lead  of  the  ignorant 
would  be  foolish;  to  follow  the  lead  of  the  godless 
would  be  worse  than  that, — it  would  be  calami- 
tous, for  it  would  conduct  us  into  who  can  tell 
what  abysses  of  disorder? 

Just  before  the  French  Revolution  false  phi- 
losophy had  undermined  the  Christian  religion. 
One  of  the  objects  of  its  attack  had  been  the 
sacredness  of  the  domestic  relations,  all  idea  of 
which  had  withered  beneath  the  blight  of  infi- 
delity. 

A  new  application  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
present-day  infidelity  is  now  attacking  our  family 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  177 

life,  and,  under  the  specious  plea  of  elevating 
women  and  bettering  the  condition  of  children,  is 
annihilating  the  home. 

If  these  recent  enactments  were  to  be  repealed, 
the  common  law  of  England  would  stand  revived. 
If  it  were  thought  that,  in  regard  to  the  personal 
relations  of  the  husband  and  wife,  there  were  any 
points  which  should  be  modified  to  conform  more 
to  the  ideas  of  the  present  age,  they  could  be 
specifically  provided  for.  In  regard  to  the  prop- 
erty rights  of  the  consorts,  if  the  simplicity  of  the 
common  law  in  practically  vesting  the  title  of  all 
the  property  of  the  wife  except  her  real  estate  in 
the  hubsand  were  deemed  too  favorable  to  him, 
some  other  method  whereby  a  reasonable  com- 
munity of  interest  in  the  property  owned  by  either 
consort  would  be  secured  to  the  other  could  be 
adopted.  It  would  not  require  a  Lycurgus  nor  a 
Solon  to  devise  some  beter  method  than  that  now 
in  force,  whereby  the  hubsand  is  too  often  reduced 
to  zero,  and  creditors  defrauded  of  their  just 
debts. 


CHAPTER  XI 

Any  one  or  more  of  the  following  characters 
might  easily  be  seen  during  a  day's  stroll  about 
one  of  our  cities. 

The  man  you  see  over  there  in  seedy  clothes 
and  shiny  elbows,  with  the  careworn  expression 
on  his  face,  is  on  his  way  to  the  office  of  the  life 
insurance  agent,  to  pay  the  premium  which  falls 
due  to-day. 

The  well-dressed  man  with  the  shifty  appear- 
ance about  him,  who  will  not  look  you  straight 
in  the  eye,  has  just  come  from  his  lawyer's,  where 
he  has  executed  a  deed  to  his  wife,  in  consideration 
of  love  and  affection,  conveying  all  his  property 
to  her.  Some  notes  of  his  fall  due  to-morrow, 
and  there  is  no  means  of  payment  in  sight. 

The  two  men  you  have  just  passed  walking 
like  brothers  side  by  side  and  very  close  to  each 
other  are  not  brothers:  they  are  a  husband  and 
a  deputy  sheriff  who  has  arrested  him  for  con- 
tempt of  court  in  not  paying  the  alimony  due  this 
month  to  his  wife.  They  are  now  on  their  way  to 
the  court-house. 

The  group  of  idlers  you  saw  on  the  corner  are 
the  boys  just  discharged  from  the  theater,  in 
order  to  put  girls  in  their  places  as  ushers. 

178 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  179 

The  funeral  which  passed  in  front  of  you  at  the 
corner  was  that  of  a  man  who  had  been  shot  by 
his  wife. 

The  row  of  deserted-looking  houses  you  noticed 
in  the  west  end  were  those  of  the  leading  citizens, 
whose  wives  and  children  are  away  until  the  fall. 

The  pallid  face  of  the  man  you  saw  at  the 
morgue  was  that  of  a  business  man  who  shot  him- 
self. His  wife  had  just  brought  a  suit  against 
him  for  divorce. 

The  cluster  of  newly-made  graves  that  you 
were  struck  with  while  passing  through  the  ceme- 
tery were  those  of  the  family  that  had  been  killed 
by  the  father  before  he  committed  suicide.  The 
single  one  in  the  next  lot  was  that  of  the  father 
who  had  been  killed  by  his  son. 

The  men  in  the  cells  on  the  side  of  the  jail  you 
looked  at  were  those  who  had  been  imprisoned 
for  non-support.  The  one  about  to  be  taken  out 
of  the  city  was  he  who  had  been  condemned  to 
work  on  the  public  roads  for  deserting  his  wife, 
who  had  threatened  him  with  a  divorce. 

The  very  fashionably  dressed  widow  who  drives 
down  the  street  in  a  "smart"  turnout  is  the  lady 
whose  husband  committed  suicide  not  long  ago. 
No  one  knew  why. 

The  man  who  walks  rapidly  past  you  with  a 
preoccupied  air  is  on  his  way  to  the  court-house — 
the  divorce  case  pending  between  him  and  his 
wife  is  up  for  trial,  and  the  amount  of  alimony 
to  be  decreed  against  him  will  be  decided  to-day. 


i8o  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

The  pretty  house  which  you  particularly  noticed 
as  being  "For  Sale"  was  the  home  of  the  wealthy 
young  couple  whose  marriage  was  the  leading 
social  event  last  spring,  but  who  could  not  get  on 
together.  The  bride  is  now  living  with  her 
parents,  and  the  husband  is  traveling  abroad. 

A  large  crowd  is  collected  about  a  formidable 
looking  building.  It  is  the  Court  House.  Some 
of  the  crowd  are  witnesses,  others  defendants,  and 
still  others  idle  bystanders.  A  number  of  cases 
are  set  for  trial.  Some  of  these  are  warrants 
against  men  for  deserting  wives  with  whom  they 
cannot  live  in  peace;  or,  being  out  of  work,  for  not 
supporting  them.  Other  cases  involve  whole 
families  in  which  rows  have  broken  out,  the  blame 
for  everything  being  of  course  laid  upon  the  hus- 
bands, who  are  to  be  vigorously  prosecuted,  their 
wives  and  children  testifying  against  them.  Their 
fate  and  the  future  conduct  of  their  homes  depend 
upon  the  decision  of  a  judge  and  jury  who  de- 
cide matters  of  fundamental  importance  to  the 
whole  of  society  as  best  they  may  under  the  pres- 
sure of  business  due  to  an  overcrowded  docket, 
and  with  a  general  notion  in  their  minds  that  the 
public  expects  them  to  render  nothing  but  judg- 
ments of  guilty  against  all  husbands  and  fathers 
brought  before  them. 

On  a  more  prominent  street  a  larger  crowd, 
mainly  composed  of  matrons  and  young  women, 
are  pressing  into  an  attractive  building.  The 
matinee  is  about  to  begin;  the  play  they  will  see 


HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  181 

has  as  its  theme  the  tearing  asunder  of  husband 
and  wife. 

The  lady  in  mourning,  with  the  pleased  expres- 
sion on  her  countenance,  riding  in  her  new  auto- 
mobile, is  the  widow  of  the  man  who  worked 
himself  to  death  last  month.  She  has  just  col- 
lected the  life  insurance. 

The  chatty  group  of  ladies  on  the  other  side 
of  the  street,  well  kept  and  well  dressed,  having 
just  come  from  a  card-party,  which  took  up  the 
morning,  are  now  on  their  way  to  a  suffrage  meet- 
ing, to  demand  more  rights. 


Father  and  Child 


Father  and  Child 

CHAPTER  I 

"Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother;  that  thy 
days  may  be  long  upon  the  land  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  giveth  thee."  (Exodus  XX,  12.) 

One  would  think  upon  studying  the  construction 
of  American  society,  that  this  commandment  had 
been  written:  "Honor  thy  son  and  thy  daughter, 
that  thy  days  may  be  short  upon  the  land  which 
the  Lord  their  God  giveth  them." 

The  subordination  of  children  to  their  parents 
is  manifestly  the  order  of  nature,  and  there  is  no 
good  reason  for  the  way  in  which  we  see  this 
relation  so  often  reversed.  It  is  here  that  modern 
life  presents  possibly  the  most  striking  contrast  to 
past  usages  and  customs.  Everything  now  is  in 
favor  of  the  child,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  head 
of  the  family — the  father.  The  sum  total  of  the 
rights  which  exist  in  the  world  must  remain  prac- 
tically the  same,  so  when  rights  are  changed  it  must 
be  that  what  is  given  to  one  is  taken  away  from 
another.  Now  >all  the  present  freedom  and  lib- 
erty of  women  and  children,  together  with  all  the 
incidents  connected  with  it,  are  at  the  expense  of 

185 


1 86          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

someone  else,  and  that  someone  is  the  husband 
and  the  father.  It  is  at  his  immediate  expense,  in 
the  way  of  money,  loss  of  authority,  loss  of  serv- 
ices, and  loss  of  consideration,  that  all  these  things 
are  asserted  and  claimed  by  his  wife  and  his  chil- 
dren. They  are  supposed  to  be  the  gainers;  he 
is  undoubtedly  the  loser. 

As  between  the  two  parents — the  father  and  the 
mother — nature,  history,  custom,  law,  and  natural 
authority  clearly  indicate  the  father  as  the  prin- 
cipal parent,  as  he  also  should  in  all  respects  be 
the  undisputed  head  of  the  family.  There  is  here 
again  a  modern  tendency  to  lay  the  stress  upon  the 
other  parent,  and  emphasize  unduly  the  maternal 
relation.  The  novels  and  the  stage  are  full  of  this 
idea,  and  one  would  think  on  studying  them  that  a 
child  had  only  one  parent — its  mother. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  what  view  antiquity  took 
of  this  matter — one  about  which  they  knew  equally 
as  much  as  we  do — and  we  find  that  the  ancients 
were  in  complete  opposition  to  the  modern  idea. 

In  the  very  scholarly  work  of  De  Coulanges, 
"The  Ancient  City,"  on  page  48,  in  discussing  the 
family  religion,  he  says:  "But  we  must  notice  this 
peculiarity — that  the  domestic  religion  was  trans- 
mitted only  from  male  to  male.  This  was  owing, 
no  doubt,  to  the  idea  that  generation  was  due 
entirely  to  the  males.  The  belief  of  primitive 
ages,  as  we  find  it  in  the  Vedas,  and  as  we  find 
vestiges  of  it  in  all  Greek  and  Roman  law,  was 
that  the  reproductive  power  resided  exclusively 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  187 

in  the  father.  The  father  alone  possessed  the 
mysterious  principle  of  existence,  and  transmitted 
the  spark  of  life.  From  this  old  notion  it  fol- 
lowed that  the  domestic  worship  always  passed 
from  male  to  male;  that  a  woman  participated  in 
it  only  through  her  father  or  her  husband;  and, 
finally,  that  after  death  women  had  not  the  same 
part  as  men  in  the  worship  and  the  ceremonies  of 
the  funeral  meal.  Still  other  important  conse- 
quences in  private  law  and  in  the  constitution  of 
the  family  resulted  from  this." 

In  order  to  appreciate  fully  the  loss  of  power 
and  importance  which  fathers  have  suffered  in  this 
matter,  it  is  necessary  to  review  these  powers  as 
they  once  existed.  They  are  known  as  the  Patria 
Potestas,  or  Paternal  Authority.  We  find  an 
enumeration  of  them  in  "The  Ancient  City," 
between  pages  117  and  122.  They  consisted  of 
these  rights  on  the  part  of  the  father: 

"The  father  is  the  supreme  chief  of  the  do- 
mestic religion.  .  .  .  No  one  contests  his  sacer- 
dotal supremacy.  The  city  itself  and  its  pontiffs 
can  change  nothing  in  his  worship.  As  priest  of 
the  hearth  he  recognizes  no  superior." 

"As  religious  chief,  he  is  responsible  for  the 
perpetuity  of  the  worship,  and,  consequently,  for 
that  of  the  family.  Whatever  effects  this  per- 
petuity, which  is  his  first  care  and  his  first  duty, 
depends  upon  him  alone.  From  this  flows  a  whole 
series  of  rights: 


1 88          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"The  right  to  recognize  the  child  at  its  birth, 
or  to  reject  it.  .  *••'.;  j 

uThe  right  to  repudiate  the  wife,  either  in  case 
of  sterility,  because  the  family  must  not  become 
extinct,  or  in  case  of  adultery,  because  the  family 
and  the  descendants  ought  to  be  free  from  all 
debasement. 

"The  right  to  give  his  daughter  in  marriage, — 
that  is  to  say,  to  cede  to  another  the  power  which 
he  has  over  her.  The  right  of  marrying  his  son; 
the  marriage  of  the  son  concerns  the  perpetuity 
of  the  family. 

"The  right  to  emancipate, — that  is  to  say,  to 
exclude  a  son  from  the  family  and  the  worship. 
The  right  to  adopt, — that  is  to  say,  to  introduce 
a  stranger  to  the  domestic  hearth. 

"The  right  at  his  death  of  naming  a  guardian 
for  his  wife  and  children. 

"It  is  necessary  to  remark  that  all  these  rights 
belonged  to  the  father  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  the  other  members  of  the  family.  The  wife 
had  not  the  right  of  divorce,  at  least  in  primitive 
times.  Even  when  a  widow  she  could  neither 
emancipate  nor  adopt.  She  was  never  the  guard- 
ian even  of  her  own  children.  In  case  of  divorce, 
the  children  remained  with  the  father, — even  the 
daughters.  Her  children  were  never  in  her  power. 
Her  consent  was  not  asked  for  the  marriage  of 
her  own  daughter." 

"There  could  be  in  each  family  but  one  pro- 
prietor, which  was  the  family  itself,  and  only  one 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  189 

to  enjoy  the  use  of  the  property, — the  father." 

"The  property  not  being  capable  of  division, 
and  resting  entirely  on  the  head  of  the  family, 
neither  wife  nor  children  had  the  least  part  in 
it.  ...  The  dowry  of  the  wife  belonged,  without 
reserve,  to  the  husband,  who  exercised  over  her 
dowry  not  only  the  rights  of  an  administrator,  but 
of  an  owner." 

"The  son  was  in  the  same  condition  as  the  wife; 
he  owned  nothing.  No  donation  made  by  him 
was  valid,  since  he  had  nothing  of  his  own.  He 
could  acquire  nothing;  the  fruits  of  his  labor,  the 
profits  of  his  trade,  were  his  father's.  If  a  will 
were  made  in  his  favor  by  a  stranger,  his  father, 
not  himself,  received  the  legacy." 

"We  see  in  the  Roman  laws,  and  we  find  also 
in  the  laws  of  Athens,  that  a  father  could  sell 
his  son.  This  was  because  the  father  might  dis- 
pose of  all  the  property  of  the  family,  and  the 
son  might  be  looked  upon  as  property,  since  his 
labor  was  a  source  of  income.  The  father  might, 
therefore,  according  to  choice,  keep  this  instru- 
ment of  labor,  or  resign  it  to  another.  To  resign 
it  was  called  selling  the  son.  .  .  .  His  liberty  was 
not  sold;  only  his  labor.  Even  in  this  state 
the  son  remained  subject  to  the  parental 
authority." 

"Of  all  the  family  the  father  alone  could  appear 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  city;  public  justice 
existed  only  for  him;  and  he  alone  was  responsible 
for  the  crimes  committed  by  his  family. 


1 9o          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"Justice  for  wife  and  son  was  not  in  the  city, 
because  it  was  in  the  house.  The  chief  of  the 
family  was  their  judge,  placed  upon  a  judgment 
seat  in  virtue  of  his  marital  and  parental  author- 
ity, in  the  name  of  the  family  and  under  the  eyes 
of  the  domestic  divinities. 

"This  judicial  authority,  which  the  chief  of  the 
family  exercised  in  his  house,  was  complete  and 
without  appeal.  He  could  condemn  to  death  like 
the  magistrate  in  the  city,  and  no  authority  could 
modify  his  sentence.  'The  husband,'  says  Cato 
the  Elder,  'is  the  judge  of  his  wife;  his  power  has 
no  limit;  he  can  do  what  he  wishes.  If  she  has 
committed  a  fault,  he  punishes  her;  if  she  has 
drunk  wine,  he  condemns  her;  if  she  has  been 
guilty  of  adultery,  he  kills  her.'  The  right  was 
the  same  in  regard  to  children.  Valerius  Max- 
imus  cites  a  certain  Atilius  who  killed  his  daughter 
as  guilty  of  unchastity,  and  everybody  will  recall 
the  father  who  put  his  son,  an  accomplice  of 
Catiline,  to  death. 

"Facts  of  this  nature  are  numerous  in  Roman 
history.  It  would  be  a  false  idea  to  suppose  that 
the  father  had  an  absolute  right  to  kill  his  wife 
and  children.  He  was  their  judge.  If  he  put 
them  to  death,  it  was  only  by  virtue  of  his  right 
as  judge.  As  the  father  of  the  family  was  alone 
subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  city,  the  wife  and 
the  son  could  have  no  other  judge  than  him. 
Within  his  family  he  was  the  only  magistrate." 

This  statement  of  the  rights  of  the  father  by  De 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  191 

Coulanges*  is  amply  verified  by  other  works  on 
this  subject. 

Maine,  in  his  great  work  on  "Ancient  Law,"  on 
page  132,  and  those  following,  gives  a  similar 
account  of  the  Paternal  Authority  as  it  existed  in 
Rome. 

"Father  and  son  voted  together  in  the  city,  and 
fought  side  by  side  in  the  field;  indeed,  the  son, 
as  general,  might  happen  to  command  the  father, 
or,  as  magistrate,  decide  on  his  contracts  and 
punish  his  delinquencies.  But  in  all  the  relations 
created  by  private  law  the  son  lived  under  a 
domestic  despotism,  which,  considering  the 
severity  it  retained  to  the  last  and  the  number  of 
centuries  through  which  it  endured,  constitutes  one 
of  the  strangest  problems  in  legal  history." 

"So  far  as  regards  the  person,  the  parent,  when 
our  information  commences,  has  over  his  children 
the  jus  vita  necisque,  the  power  of  life  and  death, 
and  a  fortiori  of  uncontrolled  corporal  chastise- 
ment; he  can  modify  their  personal  condition  at 
pleasure;  he  can  give  a  wife  to  his  son;  he  can 
give  his  daughter  in  marriage;  he  can  divorce  his 
children  of  either  sex;  he  can  transfer  them  to 
another  family  by  adoption;  and  he  can  sell  them. 
Late  in  the  Imperial  period  we  find  vestiges  of  all 
these  powers,  but  they  are  reduced  within  very 
narrow  limits." 


*Reproduced  by  permission  of  the  Lothrop,  Lee  &  Shephard 
Company. 


192          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"We  cannot  tell  how  far  public  opinion  may 
have  paralyzed  an  authority  which  the  law  con- 
ferred, nor  how  far  natural  affection  may  have 
rendered  it  endurable.  But  though  the  powers 
over  the  person  may  have  been  latterly  nominal, 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  extant  Roman  juris- 
prudence suggests  that  the  father's  rights  over  the 
son's  property  were  always  exercised  without 
scruple  to  the  full  extent  to  which  they  were 
sanctioned  by  law.  There  is  nothing  to  astonish 
us  in  the  latitude  of  these  rights  when  they  first 
show  themselves.  The  ancient  law  of  Rome  for- 
bade the  children  under  power  to  hold  property 
apart  from  their  parent,  or,  we  should  say,  never 
contemplated  the  possibility  of  their  claiming  a 
separate  ownership.  The  father  was  entitled  to 
take  the  whole  of  the  son's  acquisitions,  and  to 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  his  contracts  without  being 
entangled  in  any  compensating  liability." 

Inge,  in  his  interesting  work,  entitled  "Society 
in  Rome  under  the  Caesars,"  on  page  172,  gives  a 
brief  account  of  the  paternal  authority  thus : 

"From  the  moment  when  he  first  saw  the  light 
the  Roman  child  was  absolutely  under  the  power 
of  his  father.  As  the  family,  with  its  sacred  rites 
and  continuous  existence  was  the  unit  of  society, 
so  the  pater  familias  was  the  despotic  head  of  the 
group  he  represented.  As  he  had  called  his  child 
into  being,  so  it  rested  with  him  whether  that 
being  should  be  continued  or  not.  A  sickly  or 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  193 

deformed  child  was  generally  drowned  at  once, 
and  no  obligation  was  felt  to  rear  even  a  healthy 
infant.  If  the  question  was  decided  in  its  favor, 
the  child  was  given  one  of  the  few  praenomina  in 
use  at  Rome;  the  sacred  ceremony  of  lustration 
admitted  him  into  the  family  circle;  the  golden 
token,  the  sign  of  free-birth,  was  hung  round  his 
neck;  his  birth  was  entered  in  the  acta  diurna,  and 
formal  notice  of  the  same  given  to  the  Prefect  of 
the  Treasury.  Still  the  father  by  no  means  lost  his 
authority  over  the  person  of  the  child.  He  might 
punish  him  to  any  extent  he  liked,  sell  him  as  a 
slave,  or  put  him  to  death." 

These  rules  began  with  the  foundation  of  Rome, 
and  may  account,  in  some  measure,  for  the  ascen- 
dency which  that  State  acquired  among  the  nations 
of  the  world.  The  following  statement  of  the 
policy  of  the  founder  of  that  city  is  taken  from 
Abbott's  "Life  of  Romulus/'  page  240: 

"The  great  leading  objects  of  his  life,  from  the 
time  that  he  commenced  the  government  of  the 
new  city,  were  to  arrange  and  regulate  social  insti- 
tutions, to  establish  laws,  to  introduce  discipline, 
to  teach  and  accustom  men  to  submit  to  authority, 
and  to  bring  in  the  requirements  of  law,  and  the 
authority  of  the  various  recognized  relations  of 
social  life,  to  control  and  restrain  the  wayward 
impulses  of  the  natural  heart, 
great  stress  upon  the"  parental  and  family  relation. 

"As  a  part  of  this  system  of  policy,  he  laid 


i94          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

He  saw  in  the  tie  which  binds  the  father  to  the 
child,  and  the  child  to  the  father,  a  natural  bond 
which  he  foresaw  would  greatly  aid  him  in  keep- 
ing the  turbulent  and  boisterous  propensities  of 
human  nature  under  some  proper  control.  He 
accordingly  magnified  and  confirmed  the  natural 
force  of  parental  authority  by  adding  the  sanc- 
tions of  law  to  it.  He  defined  and  established 
the  power  of  the  father  to  govern  and  control  the 
son,  rightly  considering  that  the  father  is  the 
natural  ally  of  the  state  in  restraining  young  men 
from  violence,  and  in  enforcing  habits  of  industry 
and  order  upon  them  at  an  age  when  they  most 
need  control.  He  clothed  parents,  therefore,  with 
authority  to  fulfil  this  function,  considering  that 
what  he  thus  aided  them  to  do  was  so  much  saved 
for  the  civil  magistrate  and  the  state.  In  fact, 
he  carried  this  so  far  that  it  is  said  that  the 
dependence  of  the  child  upon  the  father,  under 
the  institutions  of  Romulus,  was  more  complete 
and  was  protracted  to  a  later  period  than  was 
the  case  under  the  laws  of  any  other  nation.  The 
power  of  the  father  over  his  household  was 
supreme.  He  was  a  magistrate,  so  far  as  his  chil- 
dren were  concerned,  and  could  thus  not  only 
require  their  services,  and  inflict  light  punishment 
for  disobedience  upon  them,  as  with  us,  but  could 
sentence  them  to  the  severest  penalties  of  the  law, 
if  guilty  of  crime." 

Instances  showing  the  exercise  of  this  paternal 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  195 

power  occur  in  several  places  in  the  Bible.  The 
most  conspicuous  is  that  afforded  by  the  contem- 
plated sacrifice  by  Abraham  of  his  son  Isaac,  as 
given  in  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  Genesis: 
"And  Abraham  stretched  forth  his  hand,  and  took 
the  knife  to  slay  his  son."  The  sacrifice  was  not 
made,  a  substitute  for  the  son  was  found;  the 
test  of  Abraham's  faith  and  obedience  'had  been 
made.  But,  if  he  had  killed  Isaac,  it  would  not 
have  been  murder.  He  would  not  have  been 
called  in  question  on  account  of  it,  for,  if  he  had 
ever  been  prosecuted  in  any  earthly  tribunal,  his 
simple  and  complete  defense  would  have  been  that 
he  was  the  boy's  father,  and,  as  such,  had  the 
right  to  put  him  to  death,  if  he  thought  proper  to 
do  so. 

Another  illustration  is  found  in  Genesis,  forty- 
second  chapter,  thirty-seventh  verse.  It  had  been 
proposed  to  Jacob  to  let  his  son  take  Benjamin 
back  with  them  into  Egypt,  as  demanded  by 
Joseph.  Jacob  is  unwilling  that  this  should  be 
done,  as  he  is  afraid  he  will  never  see  him  again. 
Those  who  had  been  down  to  Egypt,  knowing  the 
necessity  of  complying  with  Joseph's  requirement, 
insist  upon  it.  "And  Reuben  spake  unto  his 
father,  saying,  Slay  my  two  sons,  if  I  bring  him 
not  to  thee :  deliver  him  into  my  hands  and  I  will 
bring  him  to  thee  again." 

In  this  case  the  father  asserted  the  power  to 
delegate  to  another  the  right  to  execute  his  chil- 
dren. Jacob  might  have  had  this  right  himself 


196  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

as  grandfather,  however,  but  Reuben  clearly 
claims  this  power  as  father. 

Another  case  illustrating  the  existence  of  this 
rule  is  found  in  II  Kings,  Chapter  III,  verses 
26  and  27.  The  Kings  of  Israel,  Judah  and 
Edom,  are  fighting  as  allies  against  the  King  of 
Moab,  who  had  rebelled  against  the  King  of 
Israel.  A  strategem  that  the  allies  resort  to  de- 
ceives the  Moabites,  and  they  are  completely 
routed  in  battle;  and  Israel,  pursuing  them  into 
their  own  country,  lays  waste  their  cities,  fills  up 
their  wells,  and  cuts  down  the  trees.  "And  when 
the  King  of  Moab  saw  that  the  battle  was  too  sore 
for  him,  he  took  with  him  seven  hundred  man 
that  drew  swords,  to  break  through,  even  unto  the 
King  of  Edom;  but  they  could  not.  Then  he 
took  his  eldest  son  that  should  have  reigned  in 
his  stead,  and  offered  him  for  a  burnt  offering 
upon  the  wall.  And  there  was  great  indignation 
against  Israel:  and  they  departed  from  him,  and 
returned  to  their  own  land." 

The  story  of  Jephthah  and  his  daughter  is 
another, — Judges  XI,  Verse  29  and  those  follow- 
ing: Jephthah,  as  a  leader  of  the  army,  is  going 
forth  to  meet  the  Ammonites  in  battle.  He  is 
very  anxious  to  achieve  a  victory. 

"And  Jephthah  vowed  a  vow  unto  the  Lord, 
and  said,  If  Thou  shalt  without  fail  deliver  the 
children  of  Ammon  into  mine  hands, 

"Then  it  shall  be  that  whatsoever  cometh  forth 
of  the  doors  of  my  house  to  meet  me,  when  I 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  197 

"And  she  said  unto  her  father,  Let  this  thing 
be  done  for  me;  let  me  alone  two  months,  that  I 
may  go  up  and  down  upon  the  mountains,  and 
bewail  my  virginity,  I  and  my  fellows, 
return  in  peace  from  the  children  of  Ammon, 
shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will  offer  it  up 
for  a  burnt  offering." 

"So  Jephthah  passed  over  unto  the  children  of 
Ammon  to  fight  against  them;  and  the  Lord  de- 
livered them  into  his  hands. 

"And  he  smote  them  from  Aroer,  even  till  thou 
come  to  Minnith,  even  twenty  cities,  and  unto  the 
plain  of  the  vineyards,  with  very  great  slaughter. 
Thus  the  children  of  Ammon  were  subdued  before 
the  children  of  Israel. 

"And  Jephthah  came  to  Mizpeh  unto  his  house, 
and,  behold,  his  daughter  came  out  to  meet  him 
with  timbrels  and  with  dances;  and  she  was  his 
only  child;  beside  her  he  had  neither  son  nor 
daughter. 

"And  it  came  to  pass,  when  he  saw  her,  that 
he  rent  his  clothes,  and  said,  Alas,  my  daughter! 
thou  hast  brought  me  very  low,  and  thou  art  one 
of  them  that  trouble  me;  for  I  have  opened  my 
mouth  unto  the  Lord,  and  I  cannot  go  back. 

"And  she  said  unto  him,  My  father,  if  thou 
hast  opened  thy  mouth  unto  the  Lord,  do  to  me 
according  to  that  which  hath  proceeded  out  of  thy 
mouth;  forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  taken  ven- 
geance for  thee  of  thine  enemies,  even  of  the 
children  of  Ammon. 


198  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"And  he  said,  Go.  And  he  sent  her  away  for 
two  months;  and  she  went  with  her  companions, 
and  bewailed  her  virginity  upon  the  mountains. 

"And  it  came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  two  months, 
that  she  returned  unto  her  father,  who  did  with 
her  according  to  his  vow  which  he  had  vowed: 
and  she  knew  no  man.  And  it  was  a  custom  in 
Israel  that  the  daughters  of  Israel  went  yearly  to 
lament  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  the  Gileadite 
four  days  in  a  year." 

This  awful  human  sacrifice,  so  sublimely  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  daughter,  and  kept  fresh  in  the 
memory  of  that  people  by  the  annual  celebration 
of  it,  appears  to  have  been  in  complete  harmony 
with  the  law  and  the  custom  of  that  time  and  that 
race.  It  did  not  prejudice  those  of  his  day  against 
Jephthah.  He  leads  the  Gileadites  soon  after- 
ward in  a  battle  against  the  tribe  of  Ephraim, 
defeats  them,  and  is  judge, — that  is,  chief  magis- 
trate and  commander  in  chief  of  Israel, — for  six 
years,  until  his  death.  (Judges  XII,  Verse  7.) 
And  his  fame  and  achievements  are  mentioned  by 
St.  Paul,  as  one  of  the  illustrations  of  the  triumph 
of  faith.  (Hebrews  XI,  Verse  32.) 

No  wonder  under  such  a  system,  and  with  such 
obedient  children,  we  find  their  praises  sung:  "Lo, 
children  are  an  heritage  of  the  Lord.  ...  As 
arrows  are  in  the  hand  of  a  mighty  man;  so  are 
children  of  the  youth.  Happy  is  the  man  that 
hath  his  quiver  full  of  them.  .  .  .  they  shall 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  199 

speak  with  the  enemies  in  the  gate."      (Psalms, 
127.) 

Such  was  the  law  and  the  custom  of  the  past. 
What  is  the  present  status  of  a  father  with  refer- 
ence to  his  own  children?  How  have  his  rights 
and  privileges  with  reference  to  his  children  been 
dealt  with  by  modern  legislatures?  He  has  been 
treated  as  if  he  were  a  public  enemy.  One  by  one 
his  rights  with  reference  to  his  children's  persons 
and  property  have  been  taken  away,  modified, 
reduced,  nearly  extinguished.  We  know  of  no 
single  provision  of  modern  legislation  which  has 
for  an  instant  contemplated  favoring,  in  any  re- 
spect, a  father.  He  is  carefully  left  with  all  the 
burdens  and  responsibilities  he  ever  had,  and  more 
are  added.  He  is  liable  still,  as  he  has  always 
been  at  common  law,  for  the  maintenance  and 
support  of  his  children;  he  is  expected  to  exercise 
the  highest  forms  of  self-abnegation  and  self- 
sacrifice  for  them,  but  when  it  comes  to  giving 
him  a  corresponding  and  compensating  authority 
over  them,  their  persons,  or  their  property,  we 
find  that  by  one  recent  act  of  legislation  after 
another  all  such  authority  has  been  practically 
taken  away.  The  father  is  to  have  all  the  burdens 
possible,  but  not  to  enjoy  any  advantages  which 
might  flow  from  this  relation. 


CHAPTER  II 

Turning  to  the  Code  of  Virginia,  we  will  see 
by  an  examination  of  existing  laws,  most  of  them 
very  recent,  what  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  has 
done  for  fathers.  These  changes  which  are  of 
far-reaching  importance  were  never  openly  de- 
bated. The  bills  making  them  law  passed  quietly 
through  the  Legislature,  and  no  one  knows  that 
a  domestic  revolution  is  being  effected  until  it  is 
all  accomplished. 

The  father  now  has  no  interest  in  property 
which  belongs  to  his  living  children.  They  may 
be  millionaires  and  he  a  pauper.  He  may  become 
guardian,  if  permitted  by  the  proper  court;  and 
in  this  case  must  give  bond,  keep  strict  accounts 
with  his  child,  settle  the  accounts  promptly,  be 
liable  for  interest  on  funds  not  invested,  held 
responsible  for  compound  interest  in  certain  cases, 
and  be  allowed  out  of  the  child's  estate  only  the 
child's  necessary  expenses  for  maintenance  and 
a  small  commission,  just  as  if  the  child  were  some 
one's  else.  He  is  held  to  accountability  for  every 
cent.  (Sections  2599,  2600,  2603,  2606,  and  the 
following. ) 

When  the  father  and  mother  are  living  apart, 
undivorced,  a  court  has  discretion  to  take  the 

200 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  201 

children  from  the  father  and  give  them  to  the 
mother.  (Section  2610.)  In  case  of  divorce,  the 
decree  of  the  court  may  take  them  from  the  father 
altogether,  (Section  2263),  although  he  is  still 
recognized  as  the  natural  guardian  and  custodian, 
and,  in  general,  entitled  to  their  custody. 
(Latham  vs.  Latham,  30  Grattan,  p.  307.) 

In  order  to  bind  a  minor  as  an  apprentice,  his 
father  as  such  has  no  right  to  do  it,  if  there  be  a 
guardian.  If  there  be  no  guardian  he  can  do  so, 
but  not  without  the  consent  of  a  court,  unless  the 
child  be  fourteen  years  old,  in  which  case,  if  the 
child  consent  to  the  proceeding,  the  consent  of  the 
court  may  be  dispensed  with.  (Section  2581.) 
The  earnings  of  the  apprentice  are  only  to  go  as 
the  court  may  direct  (Section  2589.)  The  father 
has  no  positive  right  to  them. 

The  guardian  of  any  child,  with  the  consent  of 
the  court,  may  have  'him  taken  from  his  father, 
and  put  in  any  incorporated  association,  asylum, 
or  school,  instituted  for  the  support  and  education 
of  destitute  children,  which  will  thereupon  be 
entitled  to  his  custody,  and  may  bind  him  out  as 
an  apprentice.  (Section  2582.) 

Any  overseer  of  the  poor,  when  allowed  by  the 
court,  may  place  any  child  in  such  institution,  or 
bind  him  out  as  an  apprentice,  if  he  be  found 
begging,  or  likely  to  become  chargeable  to  the 
county  or  city.  (Section  2583.) 

A  new  provision  of  law  now  allows  a  stranger 
in  blood,  with  the  consent  of  the  court  and  of  the 


202          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

legal  guardian  of  the  child,  to  adopt  a  child  and 
take  it  from  its  father  for  good  and  all,  on  the 
ground  that  the  parent  is  either  hopelessly  insane, 
or  is  habitually  intemperate,  or  has  abandoned  the 
child.  If  there  be  no  such  guardian,  the  child  may 
be  taken  away  with  the  cooperation  of  any  "dis- 
creet and  suitable  person  appointed  by  the  court 
as  the  next  friend  of  such  child." 

When  all  this  has  been  done  to  the  satisfaction 
of  the  judge,  the  child  is  lost  to  its  parents  forever, 
and  becomes  the  child  of  another.  (Section  2614 
A.) 

The  father  may  now,  under  a  very  new  statute, 
passed  in  1904,  be  put  in  jail  if  without  just  cause 
he  desert  or  wilfully  neglect  to  provide  for  the 
support  of  his  minor  children  who  may  be  in 
destitute  or  necessitous  circumstances.  This  statute 
applies  also  to  his  relation  as  husband,  and  under 
it  now  husbands  are  being  prosecuted  in  various 
parts  of  the  State.  (Section  3795  C;  Acts  1904, 
p,  208.) 

But  this  act  was  not  deemed  sufficiently  drastic, 
so,  in  order  to  define  fully  the  obligations  and  re- 
sponsibilities of  parents,  and  bring  them  entirely 
under  the  shadow  of  the  court,  the  sheriff,  the 
policeman,  and  the  jail,  the  following  bill  was 
passed,  which  took  effect  March  17,  1910: 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  general  assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia, That  any  person  within  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia of  sufficient  financial  ability,  earnings,  or  in- 
come, who  shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  provide  for 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  203 

any  child  under  fourteen  years  of  age,  of  which 
he  or  she  shall  be  the  parent  or  guardian,  such 
food,  clothing,  and  shelter  as  will  prevent  the 
suffering  and  secure  the  safety  of  such  child,  or 
shall  subject  a  child  under  seventeen  years  of  age 
to  vicious  or  immoral  influences,  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  conviction 
thereof  shall  be  subject  to  punishment  by  a  fine 
of  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  jail  for  a  period  not  to  exceed 
sixty  days,  or  in  lieu  thereof  to  'hard  labor  on  the 
public  roads  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  sixty 
days,  but  the  court  in  its  discretion,  having  re- 
gard to  the  earning  capacity  of  the  defendant, 
shall  have  the  power  to  suspend  the  execution  of 
such  sentence  and  to  make  an  order,  which  shall 
be  subject  to  change  by  it  from  time  to  time  as 
the  circumstances  may  require,  directing  the  de- 
fendant to  pay  a  certain  sum  monthly  for  the 
space  of  one  year  to  the  guardian  or  custodian  of 
such  child,  or  to  any  society  or  association*  ap- 
proved by  the  court,  and  to  release  the  defendant 
from  custody  on  probation  for  the  space  of  one 
year,  upon  his  or  her  entering  into  recognizance, 
with  or  without  sureties,  as  the  court  may  direct. 

"The  conditions  of  the  above  recognizance  shall 
be  such  that  if  the  defendant  shall  promptly  make 
such  payments,  and  shall  make  his  or  her  appear- 
ance in  court  whenever  ordered  to  do  so  within 
the  year,  and  shall  further  comply  with  the  terms 
of  the  order,  and  of  any  subsequent  modification 


204          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

thereof,  then  the  recognizance  shall  be  void, 
otherwise  of  full  force  and  effect.  If  the  court 
be  satisfied,  by  information  and  due  proof,  under 
oath,  that  any  time  during  the  year  the  defendant 
has  violated  the  terms  of  such  an  order,  it  may 
forthwith  proceed  to  enforce  the  original  sen- 
tence. The  court  may  direct  any  probation  officer 
of  such  city  or  town,  at  any  time,  to  ascertain 
and  report  to  it  if  the  defendant  is  obeying  such 
order  of  the  court."  (Acts  1910,  p.  570.) 

This  Act,  passed  in  the  midst  of  the  hurry  and 
turmoil  of  the  very  last  days  of  the  session  of 
the  Legislature,  was  approved  by  the  Governor 
on  the  day  of  its  adjournment,  and  on  the  same 
day  that  other  Acts,  covering  one  hundred  and 
eight  pages  of  closely  printed  matter,  were  ap- 
proved by  him.  What  human  mind  could,  in  such 
a  period  of  time,  give  to  such  a  mass  of  legisla- 
tion due  attention? 

This  drastic  legislation  is  important  enough 
to  be  made  the  subject  of  a  party  measure, 
publicly  discussed  and  debated.  It  is  of  far  more 
importance  than  the  tariff,  the  pensions,  whether 
a  Democrat  or  Republican  be  elected  president, 
and  so  forth.  But  they  are  never  thus  discussed. 
These  measures,  which  tear  society  to  pieces, 
glide  through  the  halls  of  the  Legislature  with  the 
silent  tread  of  a  tiger,  and  become  fastened  upon 
the  public  before  it  knows  that  such  measures 
were  even  under  discussion.  No  thoughtful  man 
can  view  such  proceedings  with  approbation,  and 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  205 

his  judgment  on  the  reasonableness  of  such  do- 
mestic rules  is  not  to  be  impeached  by  the  mere 
fact  that  they  are  now  the  law.  It  is  proper  to 
inquire  how  such  acts  become  laws  and  why  they 
should  not  be  repealed. 

The  Act  concludes  with  another  sweeping  pro- 
vision, intended  to  protect  children  under  seven- 
teen years  of  age  from  all  the  ills  which  afflict 
fallen  human  nature.  This  principle  in  itself  is 
most  commendable,  and  is  one  which  the  moralists 
and  religious  teachers  of  all  times  have  struggled 
for.  But  when  put  into  law  it  would  have  the 
effect,  if  enforced  to  the  letter,  of  entitling  pos- 
sibly a  large  proportion  of  the  population,  who 
from  their  poverty  cannot  maintain  their  children 
in  the  surroundings  which  this  Act  makes  impera- 
tive, to  be  heavily  fined  and  put  in  jail.  And  it 
makes  the  position  of  a  parent  or  guardian  still 
more  dangerous,  if  indeed  it  do  not  threaten  with 
jail  the  whole  adult  population,  for  the  Act  makes 
it  unlawful  for  "any  person"  "to  knowingly  per- 
mit" any  boy  or  girl  under  seventeen  years  of 
age  to  ube  guilty  of  any  vicious  or  immoral  con- 
duct." It  is  vicious  or  immoral  to  steal  apples. 
If  you  see  a  boy  under  seventeen  years  of  age  do 
this,  and  knowingly  permit  it,  you  may  be  brought 
within  the  operation  of  this  statute.  A  fine  of 
possibly  one  hundred  dollars,  or  jail  for  a  year,  or 
hard  labor  on  the  public  roads  for  six  months  thus 
now  stares  everybody  in  the  face.  The  less  you 
have  to  do  with  children  under  these  rules  the 


2o6          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

better;  they  are  dangerous  creatures  to  have 
around.  It  was  not  under  such  rules  as  this  that 
it  was  said:  "Happy  is  the  man  who  hath  his 
quiver  full  of  them." 

Juvenile  Courts,  <one  of  the  products  of  this 
modern  legislation  in  regard  to  children,  some- 
times presided  over  by  a  woman,  are  another 
manifestation  and  result  of  the  decay  of  parental 
authority,  and  a  demonstration  of  the  need  for  the 
exercise  of  the  very  power  they  are  usurping.  A 
bed-room  slipper,  a  willow  switch,  or  a  piece  of 
shingle  judiciously  handled  by  the  fathers  of 
America  would  be  worth  all  the  machinery  of  these 
august  tribunals  put  together,  more  certain,  swift, 
economical,  and  effective.  For  more  serious  mat- 
ters the  courts  and  the  juries  have  generally  tem- 
pered justice  with  mercy  when  called  upon  to  de- 
cide the  fate  of  youthful  offenders. 

An  infant  accompanying  a  convict  mother  to 
the  penitentiary,  or  born  after  her  imprisonment 
therein,  shall  be  returned  on  attaining  the  age  of 
four  years  to  the  county  or  city  from  which  the 
mother  came,  to  be  disposed  of  as  the  circuit 
court  of  said  county,  or  the  hustings  or  corpora- 
tion court  of  said  city,  having  jurisdiction,  may 
order.  (Code,  Section  4124.)  In  this  case  the 
father,  although  he  may  be  well  known,  is  entirely 
ignored.  He  appears  to  have  no  rights  at  all  as 
to  his  own  child. 

An  elaborate  and  formidable  statute  is  also  en- 
acted authorizing  the  courts  to  exercise  practically 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  207 

unlimited  authority  in  taking  children  under  four- 
teen away  from  their  parents,  either  on  the 
ground  that  the  child  is  destitute,  or  without 
proper  place  of  abode,  or  proper  guardianship,  or 
is  deserted  or  neglected,  or  ill-treated,  etc.,  and 
holding  over  any  poor  parent  who  dares  interfere 
with  the  custody  in  which  he  may  be  placed  a  fine 
of  fifty  dollars  and  a  three  months'  term  in  jail. 
(Code,  Section  3795,  Acts  1901-2,  p.  125.) 

It  sounds  strange  in  reading  this  general  nulli- 
fier  of  parental  authority  that  certain  incorporated 
bodies  who  take  the  children  away  from  the  par- 
ents shall  have  the  power  and  the  right  "to  exer- 
cise parental  authority  and  control  over  such  chil- 
dren." Parental  authority  indeed!  We  would 
like  some  one  to  point  out  anything  more  than  the 
merest  shadow  of  it  that  the  Legislature  has  left 
in  force  in  Virginia. 

The  ancient  parental  authority  of  giving  the 
child  a  whipping  is  transferred  to  the  courts  by  a 
statute  which  provides  that  when  any  minor  under 
sixteen  years  of  age  is  convicted  of  a  misde- 
meanor,— that  is,  an  offense  not  punishable  by 
death  or  confinement  in  the  penitentiary, — the 
justice  or  the  judge  before  whom  such  conviction 
is  had  may,  if  the  parent  or  the  guardian  shall 
inflict  on  such  minor  such  punishment  as  the  court 
may  think  adequate,  discharge  such  minor  from 
custody.  The  stripes  imposed  under  this  Act  shall 
be  administered  by  the  sheriff  or  any  constable  of 
the  county  or  sergeant  of  the  Corporation  wherein 


208  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

the  conviction  is  had,  upon  the  order  of  the  judge 
or  justice  imposing  the  sentence,  and  at  such  time 
and  place  as  the  said  justice  may  direct.  The 
parent  or  guardian  shall  have  the  right  to  be  pres- 
ent when  such  stripes  are  administered.  (Code, 
Secction  3902  A;  Acts  1897-8,  p.  859.) 

For  fear  that  it  had  missed  something,  the 
Legislature  adds  another  long  and  formidable 
provision  applying  to  all  minors  charged  with 
crime,  or  with  being  vagrant  or  disorderly  or  in- 
corrigible, on  the  mere  ground  of  their  being  ar- 
rested, and  even  before  a  conviction.  This  pro- 
vision allows  minors  to  be  turned  over  to  the 
Prison  Association  of  Virginia  for  custody  and 
control,  the  association  to  enjoy  all  the  powers 
which  the  authorities  of  the  penitentiary  have 
with  reference  to  convicts  confined  there.  The 
consent  of  the  parent  or  legal  guardian  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  have  children  turned  over  in  this 
way  before  conviction.  That  much  at  least  is  re- 
served to  the  parent.  The  commitment  may  last 
until  the  child  be  eighteen  years  old.  For  helping 
a  child  to  escape,  or  knowingly  harboring  him 
after  escaping,  such  tender-hearted  offenders  may 
be  punished  by  a  fine  of  five  hundred  dollars,  and 
by  a  term  of  half  a  year  in  jail;  and  it  is  made  the 
duty  of  all  the  officers  of  the  State  to  hunt  the 
child  down,  catch  him,  and  bring  him  back.  Rig- 
orous punishments  are  provided  for  any  officer 
that  lets  him  escape,  or  that  fails  to  receive  him 
and  confine  him.  One  ray  of  hope  left  in  the 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  209 

Act  is  that  the  youthful  wretches  are  not  placed 
beyond  the  governor's  power  of  pardon,  and  con- 
sequent freedom.  (Code,  Section  4173  D.) 

A  very  similar  provision  is  made  by  another 
long  and  formidable  statute,  applying  to  the 
Negro  Reformatory  Association  of  Virginia.  The 
poor  parents,  however,  are  not  relieved  of  all  their 
liability  for  the  support  of  their  children  when  the 
latter  are  taken  in  hand  by  this  association,  as 
Section  12  of  the  Act  provides  that  they  may  still 
be  held  under  a  "continuing  judgment"  for  eight 
dollars  a  month  for  the  support  of  the  child 
that  is  committed  as  a  disorderly  or  vagrant  per- 
son. It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  very  excellent 
gentlemen  named  in  the  Act  as  trustees  will  tem- 
per the  wind  to  the  shorn  black  lambs  placed  by 
this  law  under  their  power.  (Code,  Section 
4173  E.) 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Legislature,  not  having  yet  enacted  enough 
on  the  subject,  now  takes  a  fresh  start,  and  pro- 
duces a  blood-curdling  statute  on  the  subject  of 
cruelty  to  children.  It  does  not  specially  name 
fathers,  but  it  is  evidently  aimed  at  them,  and  in- 
cludes them,  as  they  are  not  excepted  from  its 
provisions.  It  harrows  one's  feelings  even  to  read 
over  the  awful  things  which  this  Act  declares  must 
not  be  done  to  children,  such  as  placing  them  in 
dangerous  positions,  endangering  their  lives,  limbs 
and  health,  or  overworking,  cruelly  beating,  tor- 
turing, tormenting  or  mutilating  them.  It  also 
prohibits  their  being  employed  in  certain  occupa- 
tions, and  provides  for  the  children's  being  taken 
into  the  wardship  of  humane  societies  on  account 
of  "neglect,  crime,  drunkenness,  or  other  vice  of 
parents,"  and  ends  up  with  the  usual  provision 
about  fines  and  terms  in  jails.  (Code,  Section 
3795  A;  Acts  1895-6,  p.  701.)  In  case  it  might 
be  thought  better  for  this  interference  with  par- 
ental authority  to  be  conducted  under  a  corporate 
name,  and  with  corporate  powers,  on  the  ground 
of  preventing  cruelty  to  children,  this  may  be  done 
under  the  provisions  of  the  Code,  Section  1105  D, 
and  no  capital  stock  is  required  of  such  corpora- 
tion. 

210 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  211 

What  remained  of  parental  authority  has 
about  been  swept  away  by  the  following  Act, 
adopted,  March  14,  1912: 

"Any  child  adjudged  a  dependent,  a  wayward, 
or  a  delinquent  child  by  any  court  in  this  State 
may,  with  the  consent  of  the  State  board  of  chari- 
ties and  corrections,  be  placed  by  the  judge  or  jus- 
tice of  said  court  in  the  custody  of  the  State  board 
of  charities  and  corrections,  and  the  said  board 
is  authorized  to  place  such  child  in  a  selected 
family  home  or  in  an  institution  for  the  care  and 
training  of  destitute  children,  as  the  said  board 
may  deem  best  for  the  interest  of  said  child, 
until  the  said  child  shall  arrive  at  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years."  (Acts  1912,  p.  621.) 

Nearly  all  the  children  are  "dependent,"  and 
about  the  same  number  may  be  found  to  be  "way- 
ward" or  "delinquent,"  so,  practically,  all  fathers 
now  hold  their  children  under  the  sufferance  of 
the  association,  which  is  supposed  to  be  so  much 
more  solicitous  for  their  welfare. 

If  a  child  have  any  property,  we  have  said  that 
the  father,  as  such,  has  no  interest  in,  nor  con- 
trol over,  it.  It  must  be  attended  to  by  a  guar- 
dian. This  guardian  is  also  entitled  to  the  pos- 
session or  custody  of  the  child,  and  the  father  is 
only  entitled  to  this  if  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court 
he  be  "fit  for  the  trust."  (Section  2603.) 

If  a  misguided  father,  in  the  tenderness  of  his 
heart,  give  to  his  child  under  sixteen  years  of 
age  cigarettes  or  tobacco  in  any  form,  or  a  pistol, 


2i2          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

or  dirk,  or  bowie-knife,  he  may  be  fined  as  much 
as  one  hundred  dollars.  (Section  3828  B.)  Of 
course  it  is  understood  that  not  to  pay  a  fine 
means  a  term  in  jail.  (Section  726.)  This 
statute  is  general,  and  includes  fathers  because  it 
does  not  except  them. 

It  fairly  makes  one's  hair  stand  on  end  to  read 
what  may  happen  to  the  father,  along  with  any- 
body else,  who  might  accidently  happen  to  give 
his  child  "any  toy  gun,  pistol,  rifle,  or  other  toy 
firearm,  if  the  same  shall,  by  means  of  powder  or 
other  explosives,  discharge  blank  or  ball  cart- 
ridges, if  his  child  be  under  twelve  years."  In 
this  case  a  little  fine  of  at  least  fifty  dollars,  and 
possibly  one  hundred,  awaits  him,  or  a  trip  to  jail 
for  not  less  than  one  month  and  possibly  three 
months,  or  both  fine  and  jail;  and  for  acquiring 
any  of  these  articles  for  the  child  is  a  worse 
offense  yet;  a  fine  of  between  one  'and  two  hundred 
dollars  or  jail  'between  one  and  six  months,  or 
both,  await  the  transgressor.  (Section  3828  C.) 

For  fear  that  the  parents  were  having  too  easy 
and  pleasant  a  time  under  these  humane  and  en- 
lightened provisions,  and  might  yet  be  enjoying 
some  spark  of  comfort  and  pleasure  in  having 
the  children,  the  Legislature  provides  in  the 
Charter  of  the  City  of  Norfolk  an  additional 
method  of  curbing  them.  This  provision  is  as 
follows : 

"When  by  the  provisions  of  this  Act  the  City 
councils  have  authority  to  pass  ordinances  on  any 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  213 

subject,  they  may  prescribe  any  penalty  not  ex- 
ceeding five  hundred  dollars,  except  where  a  pen- 
alty is  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  for  a  viola- 
tion thereof;  and  on  failing  to  pay  the  penalty  re- 
covered, shall  be  imprisoned  in  the  jail  of  said 
City  for  any  term  not  exceeding  three  calendar 
months,  which  penalties  may  be  prosecuted  and 
recovered  with  costs  in  the  name  of  the  City  of 
Norfolk.  And  the  City  Councils  may  subject  the 
parent  or  guardian  of  any  minor,  or  the  master 
or  mistress  of  any  apprentice,  to  any  such  penalty 
for  any  such  offense  committed  by  such  minor  or 
apprentice."  (Charter  of  the  City  of  Norfolk, 
Section  19,  Paragraph  20.)  There  you  are 
again, — fines  and  jail  for  things  that  the  poor 
father  did  not  even  do,  but  all  the  same  they  can 
take  all  his  money  away,  and  fling  him  in  jail  for 
what  his  bad  boy  may  have  done. 

With  the  mania  that  exists  for  copying  every 
piece  of  new  legislation  that  can  be  found,  it  is 
more  than  likely  that  most,  if  not  all,  of  our  cities 
have  this,  or  some  such  similar  provision.  This 
is  one  of  the  worst  of  all  these  enactments.  It 
embodies  all  the  severity  of  the  ancient  system, 
which  held  the  parent  alone  responsible  for  the 
offenses  committed  by  his  household,  but  it  is 
put  in  force  in  an  age  when  the  State  has  para- 
lyzed parental  authority.  The  father  is  no  longer 
allowed  to  control  his  children,  but  he  may  be 
severely  punished  for  what  they  do. 

So  much  for  the   father's  power  and  control 


2i4          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

over  the  persons  of  his  children.  We  might  es- 
timate the  result  of  these  enactments  thus :  When 
we  subtract  from  the  common  law  rights  of  the 
father  the  sum  of  the  above  statutes  the  re- 
mainder is  nothing. 

What  was  once  thought  a  proper  way  to  secure 
and  enforce  parental  authority  is  thus  laid  down 
by  Moses,  the  great  lawgiver  of  Israel,  who  was, 
by  divine  authority,  enunciating  the  rules  which 
were  to  govern  a  nation : 

"If  a  man  have  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  son, 
which  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father,  or  the 
voice  of  his  mother,  and  that,  when  they  have 
chastened  him,  will  not  hearken  unto  them :  Then 
shall  his  father  and  his  mother  lay  hold  on  him, 
and  bring  'him  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  and 
unto  the  gate  of  his  place;  And  they  shall  say 
unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This  our  son  is  stub- 
born and  rebellious,  he  will  not  obey  our  voice ; 
he  is  a  glutton,  and  a  drunkard.  And  all  the 
men  of  this  city  shall  stone  him  with  stones,  that 
he  die;  so  shall  thou  put  evil  away  from  among 
you,  and  all  Israel  shall  hear,  and  fear."  (Deuter- 
onomy, XXI,  1 8-2 1.) 

In  giving  the  foregoing  rules  of  ancient  law  in 
regard  to  the  power  of  life  and  death  which  the 
father  and  husband  had  over  the  members  of 
his  family,  tjie  object  has  been,  not  to  make  it 
appear  that  such  would  be  a  desirable  thing  to  re- 
establish to-day  (we  are  too  far  away  now  from 
those  times  and  customs,  and  society  has  been  too 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  215 

long  arranged  upon  another  basis,  with  its  elabo- 
rate system  of  courts),  but  to  present  to  the  minds 
of  the  men  of  the  present  age  the  dignity  and  the 
power  with  which  they  were  formerly  surrounded, 
so  as  to  enable  them  to  appreciate  the  striking 
contrast  thereby  afforded;  and  to  submit  to  them 
in  practical  form  the  result,  as  affecting  them,  of 
modern  legislation,  and  to  ask  whether  they  think 
that  with  women  voting  their  position  in  the 
world  will  be  improved. 

Turning  again  to  the  father's  relation  to  the 
property  of  his  children,  we  find  that  as  father 
he  has  no  control  over  it.  He  is  nowhere  recog- 
nized as  ex  officio  guardian.  He  might  be  allowed 
to  act  as  guardian  or  curator,  but  the  real  power 
in  this  selection  is  in  a  court.  (Section  2600, 
2602,  2603,  2564.) 

The  father  has  no  right  to  bring  a  suit  for  his 
child;  this  must  be  by  his  "next  friend,"  the  stat- 
ute not  even  noticing  the  father  in  that  connection. 
(Section  2614.) 

A  father  has  no  right  to  defend  a  suit  brought 
against  his  child;  this  must  be  by  a  guardian  ad 
litem,  and  the  father  is  utterly  ignored.  (Sec- 
tions 2618,  2629,  3255,  2435.) 

As  it  is  apparently  the  fixed  purpose  of  the 
Legislature  to  deprive  the  father  of  all  interest 
in  the  property  of  his  child,  as  a  branch  of  this 
plan  it  is  provided  that  the  wages  of  a  minor  shall 
not  be  liable  to  garnishment  or  otherwise  liable  to 
the  payment  of  the  debts  of  his  parents.  (Sec- 


216  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

tion  3652  C.)  That  the  debts  might  have  been 
contracted  for  the  support  of  the  child  is  made  no 
ground  of  exception  to  the  rule. 

A  father  cannot  even  make  a  lease  of  land  be- 
longing to  his  child,  without  an  order  of  court, 
much  less  sell  or  encumber  any  of  it.  (Sections 
2615,  2616.) 

A  wonderful  and  striking  exception  to  all  this 
line  of  legislation  is  presented  in  a  miserable  little 
statute  which  allows  a  sum  of  money  belonging 
to  an  infant  (arising  from  the  sale  of  land  or 
otherwise  coming  into  the  hands  of  a  court  in 
some  proceeding  therein,  when  the  amount  is  less 
than  three  hundred  dollars)  to  be  paid  over  by  the 
court  "without  the  intervention  of  a  guardian"  to 
one  of  the  parents  of  the  infant  (it  does  not  even 
say  the  father)  for  the  education,  maintenance, 
and  support  of  the  child,  if  it  be  very  young. 
(Acts  1908,  p.  45.)  The  reason  for  this  is 
probably  because  the  amount  is  so  small  that  no 
guardian  would  be  likely  to  be  found  who  would 
be  willing  to  be  made  responsible  for  it. 


CHAPTER  IV 

In  the  case  of  the  death  of  an  infant  that  had 
property,  the  father  is  given  the  priority  which 
naturally  belongs  to  him,  as  there  cannot  be  in 
this  case  any  further  question  between  him  and 
the  child.  This  applies  in  all  cases  where  the 
infants  are  under  eighteen  years  of  age,  as  under 
this  age  they  cannot  make  a  will  of  real  nor 
personal  property.  (Section  2513.) 

Taking,  therefore,  the  case  of  the  death  of  an 
infant  under  eighteen  years  of  age,  the  law  is  that 
he  must  die  intestate,  that  is,  without  a  will,  as 
even  if  he  should  make  one  it  would  be  of  no 
force.  What  becomes  of  his  property? 

If  he  have  any  children  it  goes  to  them.  If 
there  be  no  child,  nor  the  descendant  of  any  child, 
then  it  goes  to  'his  father. 

If  there  be  no  father,  then  to  the  mother, 
brothers,  and  sisters,  these  latter  sharing  equally, 
while  the  father  alone  inherits.  Such  is  the  gen- 
eral rule  that  applies  to  his  real  estate.  (Sec- 
tion 2548.) 

But  if  the  infant  die  without  issue,  having  title 
to  real  estate  derived  by  gift,  devise  or  descent 
from  one  of  his  parents,  the  whole  of  it  shall  de- 
scend and  pass  to  his  kindred  on  the  side  of  that 

217 


2i 8          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

parent  frtfm  whom  it  was  so  derived,  if  any  such 
kindred  be  living  at  the  death  of  the  infant.  If 
there  be  none  such  kindred,  then  it  shall  descend 
and  pass  to  his  kindred  on  the  side  of  the  other 
parent.  (Section  2556.)  That  is,  in  the  case  of 
the  death  of  an  infant  nearly  twenty-one  years  old 
(on  whom  the  father  may  have  expended  thous- 
ands in  care,  support,  and  education)  having  title 
to  a  piece  of  property, — say,  the  home  in  which 
they  live,  which  he  may  have  acquired  by  will  or 
descent  from  his  mother  twenty  years  ago,  and 
which  might  have  been  given  to  the  mother  by  the 
father, — on  the  death  of  the  infant,  the  home 
might  go  to  the  fifteenth  cousin  on  the  mother's 
side,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  father. 

This  is  an  interesting  point  of  law  for  those 
men  to  think  about  who,  in  order  to  protect  their 
property  from  their  creditors,  are  so  fond  of  put- 
ting it  in  the  names  of  their  wives.  They  seek 
security.  They  are  really  running  the  risk  of 
total  loss. 

So  much  for  real  estate.  The  personal  prop- 
erty of  infants  stands  on  a  different  basis.  As  to 
this,  if  the  infant  be  as  much  as  eighteen  years  old, 
he  may  leave  all  of  this  form  of  property  to 
whomsoever  he  pleases.  He  may  be  a  millionaire, 
the  father  may  own  nothing;  yet  the  father  may 
be  absolutely  ignored.  (Section  2513.) 

Should  the  infant  die  without  a  will,  however, 
his  personal  property  follows  the  general  rule 
of  descent  of  land  and  of  the  law  applicable  to 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  219 

the  disposition  of  the  property  of  all  adults,  and 
passes  first  to  his  children  and  their  descendants, 
if  there  be  any;  and  if  none,  then  alone  to  the 
father,  and  if  there  be  no  father,  then  to  the 
mother,  brothers,  and  sisters  equally.  (Sections 
2557>  2548.) 

The  law  on  the  subject  of  the  control  and  the 
management  of  property  owned  by  a  married 
woman  who  is  a  minor  belongs  to  the  chapter  on 
husband  and  wife.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  say  here 
that  the  Legislature  has  carefully  excluded  both 
the  two  persons  who  naturally  and  properly 
should  control  and  manage  it, — the  father,  or 
more  properly  the  husband.  These  two  relations 
are  treated  with  the  customary  hostility  and  con- 
tempt. (Section  2291.) 

In  the  case  of  damages  recovered  for  the 
wrongful  death  of  an  infant,  the  jury  may  exclude 
the  father  altogether  from  the  fund,  or  put  him 
on  the  same  footing  as  his  wife  and  his  other  chil- 
dren. All  of  those  in  this  class,  however,  are 
made  subordinate  to  the  wife,  the  husband,  and 
the  children  of  the  deceased.  (Section  2904.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  not  one  word  in  this 
scheme  of  legislation  has  been  said  about  lessen- 
ing or  relieving  in  any  way  the  father  from  the 
obligation  he  is  under  at  common  law  for  the  sup- 
port, the  maintenance,  and  the  education  of  his 
children.  For  all  these  things  he  is  still  liable, 
as  he  has  always  been.  Those  who  supply  these 
things  to  his  children  can  sue  him  for  the  money 


220  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

due  therefor,  obtain  judgment  against  him,  and 
sell  his  property  by  the  sheriff  in  order  to  secure 
payment.  Not  one  line  of  any  of  these  statutes 
has  relieved  him  of  any  thing,  nor  in  any  way. 
They  are  all,  without  exception,  hostile  provisions 
as  to  him. 

On  obtaining  a  decree  of  divorce,  the  court  may 
take  all  the  children  from  the  father,  and  may 
compel  him  to  support  them,  while  they  remain  in 
his  wife's  possession.  (Section  2263.) 

As  to  the  rule  as  to  who  shall  have  the  custody 
of  the  children,  we  are  not  surprised  to  be  told 
that  it  is  the  welfare  of  the  child  that  is  the 
controlling  consideration,  as  the  parents, — or  at 
least  the  father, — is,  of  course,  no  longer  deemed 
a  proper  object  of  any  consideration.  (Meyer  vs. 
Meyer,  100  Va.,  228;  Stringfellow  vs.  Somewille, 
95  Va.,  707.) 

The  consent  of  the  guardian  of  an  infant  can 
be  given  to  his  or  her  proposed  marriage,  which 
consent  will  overrule  any  objection  the  father  or 
mother  may  have.  (Section  2218.) 

In  reference  to  guardians,  it  affords  food  for 
thought  to  consider  the  fact  that  it  is  only  in  the 
presence  of  death  that  the  Legislature  of  Virginia 
allows  a  father  to  nominate  a  guardian  for  his 
children.  So  long  as  the  father  be  alive  he  is 
regarded  with  suspicion,  and  his  children's  prop- 
erty must  be  protected  from  him.  So  long  as  he 
be  alive  the  power  of  appointment  is  vested  in  a 
court.  The  statute  says:  "If  the  minor  is  under 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  221 

the  age  of  fourteen  years,  the  Court  or  Judge 
may  nominate  and  appoint  his  guardian;  if  he  be 
above  that  age  he  may,  in  the  presence  of  the 
Court  or  Judge,  or  in  writing,  acknowledged  be- 
fore any  officer  qualified  to  take  acknowledg- 
ments, nominate  his  own  guardian,  who  if  ap- 
proved by  the  Court  or  Judge,  shall  be  appointed 
accordingly,"  etc.  (Section  2600.)  That  is,  a 
child  fourteen  years  old  is  presumed  to  know  bet- 
ter than  his  father  what  guardian  should  be  ap- 
pointed to  take  care  of  his  estate. 

The  provision  as  to  the  appointment  by  the 
father  at  his  death  is  this: 

"Every  father  may  by  his  last  will  and  testa- 
ment appoint  a  guardian  for  his  child,  born,  or 
to  be  born,  and  for  such  time  during  his  infancy  as 
he  shall  direct,"  etc.  (Section  2597.) 

There  is  only  one  really  vigorous  principle  of 
law  left  alive  in  which,  as  between  the  father  and 
his  children,  the  father  has  the  proper  respect 
and  regard  paid  to  his  position,  and  that  is  the 
rule  which  gives  to  the  father  a  life  interest  in 
all  real  estate  which  belonged  to  his  wife,  and 
passed  at  her  death  to  her  children.  This  is  an 
old  rule  of  the  common  law,  which  has  always 
been  respected  by  the  statutes.  The  husband  is 
called  the  tenant  by  the  curtesy.  The  rule  is  of 
the  greatest  antiquity,  and  should  remain  forever. 
Expressed  in  different  words,  the  rule  is  that  as 
to  the  landed  property  coming  into  the  family 
through  the  wife  the  father  is  given  superior 


222  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

rights  to  his  own  children,  their  rights  being  prop- 
erly held  subordinate  to  those  of  the  head  of  the 
family.  (Section  2286  A,  2291,  2293.) 

Such  are  the  rules  of  law  existing  to-day  in  the 
State  of  Virginia  as  to  the  domestic  relation  of 
parent  and  child.  What  are  the  powers  and 
rights  left  to  the  father,  the  head  of  the  house, 
the  progenitor,  the  ancestor,  under  them? 
Scarcely  any.  There  is  not  even  a  decent  skeleton 
of  the  former  power  left. 

As  between  the  father  and  the  mother,  there 
is  enough  difference  still  left  in  favor  of  the  father 
•to  settle  a  few  questions  which  might  arise  be- 
tween them;  but  it  is  only  the  phantom  of  the 
real  substance  of  the  power  which  existed  in  the 
very  recent  past.  These  differences  mainly  now 
consist  in  the  following  rules: 

The  father  as  the  head  of  the  family  is  primar- 
ily entitled  to  the  care,  the  custody,  and  the  main- 
tenance of  the  children.  (Section  2603;  Latham 
vs.  Latham,  30  Grattan,  307.) 

The  father  by  his  will  may  appoint  a  guardian 
for  his  children,  although  their  mother  may  be 
alive.  The  mother  has  no  such  power  when  the 
father  is  alive.  (Section  2597.) 

The  father  is  preferred  before  the  mother  in 
the  descent  of  property  from  his  children.  (Sec- 
tions 2548,  2557),  except  when  the  property  be 
real  estate  given  to  the  infant  by  the  mother,  and 
she  be  still  alive.  (Section  2556.) 

The  father  has  rights  superior  to  his  wife  in 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  223 

consenting  to  the  marriage  of  his  infant  children. 
(Section  2218.) 

The  father  has  superior  rights  as  to  binding 
his  children  as  apprentices,  but  is  subordinated  to 
the  guardian  and  the  Court.  (Section  2581.) 

It  is  especially  noticeable  in  connection  with  this 
line  of  legislation  that  scarcely  a  vestige  of  it  ex- 
isted in  Virginia  a  generation  ago.  The  relation 
of  parent  and  child  is  as  old  as  the  race,  and  we 
may  safely  assume  that  nothing  new  has  been  dis- 
covered about  it  by  the  Legislature  in  the  past 
few  years;  yet  it  has  been  the  subject  of  incessant 
changes.  Virginia  has  laid  aside  its  leadership 
and  independence  of  thought  in  all  these  matters, 
and  has,  with  unbecoming  servility,  copied  the 
legislation  of  States  with  which  we  have  little  in 
common. 

The  whole  domestic  construction  of  Virginia, 
which  produced  the  splendid  men  of  its  past,  was 
on  a  totally  different  basis  from  all  this.  The 
new  conditions  afford  no  promise  of  improvement 
in  the  discipline,  training,  mental  or  moral  fiber, 
standards,  ideals,  or  purposes  of  the  race.  It  is 
but  the  legal  expression  of  the  modern  idea  of 
laying  the  emphasis  on  the  first  part  of  life  instead 
of  upon  its  maturity,  the  natural  effect  of  which 
is  to  degrade  instead  of  to  elevate  life  as  it 
matures  and  progresses. 

Up  to  this  point  only  there  have  been  stated 
these  rules  of  law,  the  old  and  the  new.  Let  the 
reader  now  consider  the  natural  effect  that  this 


224          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

change  of  base  on  the  part  of  society  would  have 
upon  the  domestic  relations  themselves, — that  is, 
study  its  psychological  and  sociological  effect. 

All  are  agreed  in  wishing  to  promote  the  happi- 
ness and  the  good  of  the  race,  and  this  discussion 
is  to  bring  up  for  consideration  what  policy  would 
be  most  likely  to  produce  that  result.  The  new 
laws  on  the  subject  do  not  improve  matters,  and 
this  is  the  case  for  many  reasons,  which  will  now 
be  given. 

Adult  persons  are  but  children  of  a  larger 
growth,  and  the  children  will  all,  in  a  few  years, 
become  grown  persons.  The  line  dividing  them 
soon  becomes  obliterated.  Life  is  fleeting,  and 
we  hurry  on  from  one  stage  to  the  next  by  im- 
perceptible, but  rapid,  movement.  The  responsi- 
bilities of  life  belong  to  the  adults;  they  face  the 
stern  realities  of  life  while  the  .children  frolic  and 
play.  The  care  for  the  maintenance,  the  educa- 
tion, the  training,  and  the  guidance  of  youth  is 
with  the  parents,  and  primarily  with  the  father, 
on  whom  the  heaviest  part  of  it  rests.  He  spends 
most  of  his  life  in  trying  to  make  money  enough 
to  support  his  family.  He  is  entitled  for  this 
reason,  as  well  as  on  other  accounts,  to  the  un- 
disputed leadership  and  priority  in  his  family.  It 
it,  after  all,  but  a  small  return  to  make  him. 

Under  the  former  system  his  rights  in  this  re- 
spect were  fully  accorded  and  regarded  by  the 
State,  as  well  as  by  the  family.  Society  has  now 
taken  these  rights  from  him,  in  the  interest,  as  is 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  225 

supposed,  of  his  children.  His  children  may  have 
money;  he  has  no  right  to  use  it.  On  him  rests 
the  responsibility  of  supporting  these  children, 
but  their  money  is  their  own,  and  not  his.  Be- 
tween him  and  it  there  is  interposed  a  guardian, 
whose  business  it  is  to  protect  the  children  from 
their  father, — that  is,  from  the  one  man  of  all  the 
earth  who  would  naturally  love  them  the  most, 
do  the  most  for  them,  who  would  probably  lay 
down  his  life  for  their  sakes.  But  the  law  dis- 
trusts and  despises  him,  and  will  not  let  him,  as 
father,  have  the  slightest  say  in  the  matter  of  his 
children's  money.  If  it  be  lost  by  the  guardian, 
it  will  still  be  the  father's  lawful  obligation  to 
support  and  maintain  the  children;  but  the  guar- 
dian is  the  man  in  power.  This  system  has  the 
inevitable  tendency  to  make  the  children  regard 
the  guardian  as  their  real  protector  and  their 
father  as  unworthy  of  trust,  and  a  person  to  be 
protected  against.  It  does  not  help  the  case  much 
for  the  father  to  be  also  the  guardian.  His  rights 
should  be  inherent,  ex  offiico,  not  derived  from  a 
court,  but  due  by  the  fact  of  parentage. 

Allowing  full  effect  to  the  forces  brought  into 
play  on  the  group  of  persons  involved  in  this  mat- 
ter, supposing  some  one  other  than  the  father  to 
be  the  guardian,  we  would  have  as  the  natural 
consequence  of  this  legislation  the  following  situa- 
tion: 

The  wife  would  lightly  look  upon  her  husband 
as  being  considered  in  law  unworthy  or  incompe- 


226          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

tent  to  have  immediate,  direct  management  of  his 
child's  property,  and  she  would  have  respect  for 
the  guardian  as  being  by  that  office  superior  to 
her  husband. 

The  child  would  disregard  his  father,  and  look 
to  the  guardian  as  his  protector  against  his  father. 

The  father  would  dislike  the  guardian,  who  is 
his  supplanter. 

The  guardian  would  hold  the  father  in  slight 
regard,  having  supplanted  him. 

Closely  observe  now  the  immediate  and  natural 
effect  on  the  minds  of  the  parent  and  the  child 
of  the  rules  of  law  applicable  to  their  relation. 
Let  us  begin  by  saying  that  real  power,  lawful 
power,  power  recognized  by  courts  and  govern- 
ment, has  a  profound  effect  upon  the  human  mind. 
It  is  calculated  to  inspire  respect,  if  not  awe. 
Clothe  a  parent  with  this  power,  and  he  becomes 
a  more  important  person.  A  consciousness  of 
the  dignity  of  his  position  tends  to  make  him 
strive  to  measure  up  to  its  requirements.  This 
was  the  former  policy.  The  father  was  a  sover- 
eign in  his  own  home.  No  one  questioned  his 
authority,  because  the  government  itself  recog- 
nized it.  His  wife  and  his  children  respected  him, 
because  he  held  a  position  of  tremendous  import- 
ance to  them.  He  was  their  judge  and  head,  and, 
more  than  that,  he  stood  as  a  tower  of  strength 
to  them,  protecting  them  absolutely  from  the  out- 
side civil  authorities.  The  civil  and  criminal  juris- 
prudence as  administered  by  the  State  did  not 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  227 

reach  to  them.  Between  it  and  them  towered  the 
father,  the  head  of  the  house;  and  he  could  pro- 
tect them  from  it.  Besides  this,  all  property 
rights  being  centered  in  the  head  of  the  house, 
everything  contributed  to  make  him  a  natural  and 
proper  object  of  respect.  He  had  the  power, 
and  power  is  generally  respected. 

The  issue  presented  by  the  change  which  has 
taken  place  is  the  substitution  of  a  court  for  the 
authority  of  the  father.  Under  the  former  system, 
the  father  was  the  court.  Now  it  is  another  man, 
called  a  judge,  who  has  no  interest  in  the  affairs 
of  the  family,  most  likely  never  saw  nor  heard 
of  the  infants  whose  matters  are  brought  before 
him,  and  who,  instead  of  deciding  what  might 
be  called  the  more  normal  subjects  of  litigation, 
finds  himself  called  upon  to  administer  the  do- 
mestic affairs  of  various  households.  All  this  is, 
of  course,  attended  with  expense  to  the  parties 
involved,  and  takes  up  the  time  of  the  court. 
Who  believes  that,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases, 
the  affair  is  attended  to  by  the  court  any  better 
than  it  would  be  by  the  father  of  the  child? 
Is  any  one  then  really  benefited  by  having  de- 
graded the  parent  from  his  position,  and  having 
transferred  to  a  strange  judge  the  powers  which 
naturally  belonged  to  him?  The  Legislature 
would  probably  answer  that  the  children  were 
benefited,  or  at  least  that  they  were  led  to  be- 
lieve that  the  children  would  be  benefited  when 
they  adopted  these  rules.  They  might  say  that 


228  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

the  father  no  longer  has  the  power  to  punish  se- 
verely his  children;  but  the  Corporation  and  Cir- 
cuit Court  Judges  and  the  Federal  Judges,  on 
the  verdict  of  a  jury,  have  the  right,  and  exercise 
it  in  aggravated  cases,  or  if  the  ends  of  justice  de- 
mand it.  The  father  has  no  right  to  beat  his 
children,  but  the  Police  Courts  have.  (Section 
3902  A.)  The  father  has  not  the  right  to  confine 
and  severely  discipline  bad  children,  but  the  Prison 
Association  has.  (Section  4173  D.)  The  father 
has  no  right  to  make  the  child  work  for  him,  but 
his  master  may,  if  he  be  bound  apprentice.  (Sec- 
tion 2581.)  And  so  on. 

These  powers  over  the  child,  then,  still  exist, 
and  they  should  exist;  but  they  exist  in  the  civil 
authorities  instead  of  in  the  parent  of  the  child. 
The  judge,  the  jailer,  the  Prison  Association,  etc., 
usurp  the  powers  of  the  father,  leaving  him  with 
a  mass  of  responsibilities,  but  no  rights,  powers, 
nor  privileges. 


CHAPTER  V 

What  is  the  effect  of  this  policy  on  the  parties 
immediately  involved?  Which  system  will  be 
more  productive  of  a  race  of  independent  and 
powerful  men,  and  of  love  and  regard  in  the  re- 
lation? This  is,  after  all,  the  most  important 
point  in  the  whole  matter. 

Take  first  the  case  of  the  father,  and  analyze 
the  situation  as  to  him.  Under  the  one  system 
the  law,  society,  government,  put  his  children  ex- 
clusively under  his  power.  They  are  his,  against 
the  world.  The  policeman  could  not  touch  them, 
the  sheriff  could  not  touch  them,  the  courts 
could  not  touch  them.  Their  property  is  his 
property.  They  must  obey  him.  There  must 
be  no  disputing  and  questioning  his  authority, 
they  must  obey  him  just  like  the  well  drilled 
soldiers  and  sailors  obey  their  officers,  and  as 
in  every  fixed  relation  of  life  where  there  is  a 
gradation  of  power  and  dignity  and  authority  the 
order  given  by  lawful  authority  is  to  be  obeyed. 

This  is  a  satisfactory  rule  and  system  as  to  the 
fathers.  They  would  approve  of  it,  and  naturally 
love  those  who  ministered  to  them  in  this  way. 
They  are  exalted  among  their  fellow-men  by  being 
at  the  head  of  a  group  of  other  persons.  There 
is  every  reason  why  they  should,  under  this  sys- 


230          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

tern,  love  and  cherish  their  children.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  advantage  to  the  father  in  being 
a  father,  and  the  more  children  he  had,  the  bet- 
ter off  he  would  be.  He  would  have  that  much 
larger  army,  that  many  more  allies,  that  many 
more  assistants,  that  much  more  dignity,  power, 
and  wealth.  There  would  be  a  great  deal  of  dig- 
nity in  it  for  him;  and  as  the  rule  would  extend 
to  grandchildren  as  well  as  children,  the  older  he 
grew,  the  more  his  power  would  increase — the 
number  of  his  supporters  and  allies  would  in- 
crease year  by  year,  and  the  decline  of  life  would 
be  mellowed  and  warmed  by  power  and  influence. 

The  very  power  he  had  over  his  children  would 
make  him  love  them  more.  He  would  feel  their 
dependence  upon  him,  and  they  would  look  to  him 
for  protection.  All  this  is  in  addition  to  that 
great  natural  affection  which  tends  to  spring  from 
the  fact  of  parentage  under  any  system. 

The  effect,  too,  directly  upon  the  character  of 
the  father  is  most  important.  Under  this  system, 
the  Romans  became  the  conquerors  of  the  earth. 
Its  natural  tendency  was  to  produce  mighty  men. 
The  honors  and  the  rewards  of  life,  increasing  as 
one  advances  in  age,  tend  to  keep  alive  to  the  last 
the  utmost  vigor  that  one  possesses.  This  was  a 
system  of  continued  expansion  with  the  flight  of 
years.  This  system  had  the  natural  tendency  to 
make  parents  love  their  children  in  the  highest 
measure,  and  to  make  of  the  fathers  the  best  that 
was  in  them.  Thus  they  became  more  honorable, 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  231 

admirable,  and  lovable  characters  for  their  chil- 
dren to  contemplate. 

Contrast  with  that  the  present  system.  The 
father  has  upon  his  shoulders  all  the  burdens 
which  the  relation  naturally  carries  with  it.  His 
children's  property  is  their  own,  carefully  guarded 
from  him.  He  has  little  or  no  direct  power  over 
them,  and  as  to  this  little  he  is  liable  to  become 
entangled  in  disputes  with  his  wife.  The  civil 
authorities  watch  him  with  a  jealous  eye,  standing 
ready  to  fine  him,  fling  him  into  prison,  and  other- 
wise punish  him,  if  he  does  not  deal  with  the  chil- 
dren and  their  property  strictly  according  to  the 
provisions  of  long  and  formidable  statutes.  The 
whole  of  society  demands  of  him  incessant  sacri- 
fices for  the  children — everything  for  them,  noth- 
ing for  him;  forever  their  interests,  never  his. 
He  becomes  an  object  of  pity  or  contempt.  Any- 
thing is  good  enough  for  him. 

Is  all  this  calculated  to  produce  love  in  him  for 
his  children?  We  think  not,  and  believe  that 
what  is  left  exists  as  the  remainder  of  a  certain 
fund  of  natural  affection  after  the  inevitable  effect 
of  this  legislation  has  been  subtracted  from  it. 

Then  what  is  the  effect  on  the  mind  and  the 
character  of  the  fathers?  They  see  themselves 
thrust  aside,  as  if  of  no  account,  and  the  world 
attending  mainly  to  the  children.  They  are  also 
reduced  to  their  lowest  terms,  to  their  minimum, 
and  are  taught  by  society  that  it  is  only  the  young 


23 2  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

who  are  of  value.  The  fathers  shrink  up,  and  are 
not  encouraged  to  be  the  greatest  that  they  could 
be. 

Turn  now  to  the  effect  upon  the  children. 
Under  which  system  will  they  love  their  parents 
more? 

We  know  that  under  the  former  system  they 
not  only  loved  them,  honored  and  revered  them, 
but  actually,  in  the  East,  worshiped  them  as  divini- 
ties. 

Under  the  present  system,  they  are  taught  that 
it  is  their  parents'  duty  to  give  up  everything  for 
them.  They  see  the  court-appointed  guardian 
standing  between  their  little  fortunes  and  their 
father,  they  hear  of  fathers  being  arrested  and 
flung  in  jail  for  deserting  or  failing  to  support 
their  minor  children,  under  that  beautiful  statute, 
Section  3795  C;  they  know  about  the  title  to  the 
home  being  put  in  their  mother's  name,  to  keep  the 
creditors  off;  they  hear  the  father's  authority  in 
the  home  questioned  by  their  mother.  They  know 
that  their  father  cannot  protect  them  against  the 
policeman;  and,  in  short,  they  never  think  of  him 
as  having  any  special  power  or  authority  at  all, 
but  they  may  think  of  him  as  having  no  other  par- 
ticular rights  and  privileges  than  those  of  having 
to  work  very  hard  to  support  the  family.  Under 
this  system  they  will  naturally  feel  for  their  father 
the  minimum  of  honor,  respect,  and  love.  We 
even  read  in  the  daily  papers  of  their  getting  out 
warrants,  and  having  their  fathers  arrested  and 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  233 

hauled  before  the  courts,  in  connection  with  the 
family  rows  which  so  frequently  occur. 

A  sample  of  these  rows,  and  the  dreadful  con- 
sequences to  which  they  lead,  all  probably  due  to 
the  fundamental  defect  of  the  children  not  having 
been  taught  to  obey  the  father,  is  presented  by  the 

following  accounts : 

\ 

"Lawrenceville,  Va.,  Oct.  22. — X.,  a  well- 
known  farmer,  has  been  arrested  on  the  charge  of 
shooting  his  son  and  small  daughter,  as  a  result 
of  a  general  family  altercation  at  his  home  about 
four  miles  north  of  B.  yesterday. 

"It  is  reported  that  the  young  man  is  seriously 
wounded,  while  the  child  is  only  slightly  hurt. 
Conflicting  reports  have  been  received  here  con- 
cerning the  condition  of  both  victims,  however, 
the  scene  of  the  shooting  being  a  considerable  dis- 
tance from  Lawrenceville. 

"General  sympathy  is  expressed  for  the  son  and 
the  little  girl,  who  are  receiving  the  best  of  care  at 
the  hands  of  the  neighbors,  relatives,  and  friends, 
who  have  gone  to  the  X.  home  to  offer  their 
assistance." 

Many  cases  have  occurred  where  fathers  have 
been  killed  in  these  family  controversies  by  their 
sons.  No  one  ever  appears  to  take  his  side  about 
anything.  A  family  row  proves,  of  itself,  that  the 
husband  and  father  is  the  cause  of  it,  and  in  the 
wrong;  and  he  seems  to  be  regarded  as  getting 


234          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

only  what  he  deserves,  no  matter  what  happens 
to  him. 

"Raleigh,  N.  C.,  January  29. — X.  Y.  was  shot 
and  instantly  killed  this  afternoon  at  his  home 
near  Eagle  Rock,  this  county,  by  his  son,  Z.  The 
two  quarreled  about  some  wood,  the  son  ran  up- 
stairs, procured  a  revolver,  and  came  back  with 
it,  opening  fire  on  his  father. 

"The  fourth  shot  penetrated  his  heart.  The 
deceased  was  fifty  years  old,  the  young  man  just 
twenty-one.  He  has  given  himself  up  to  the  offi- 
cers of  the  law  and  he  will  be  brought 
to  Raleigh." 

Not  alone  in  the  family  circle  is  the  bad  effect 
of  the  new  ideas  in  regard  to  the  bringing  up  of 
children  felt,  but  by  the  whole  community;  and 
that  too  in  regard'  to  its  most  vital  interests. 
Young  people  fully  old  enough  to  know  what  they 
ought  and  ought  not  to  do  have  been  encouraged 
to  commit  crimes  by  a  feeling  of  security  and 
immunity  which  they  rely  on  being  extended  to 
them  on  account  of  their  youth.  In  France  a  few 
months  ago  a  young  man,  under  age,  strangled  his 
aunt  who  had  refused  to  lend  him  money.  When 
sentenced  to  the  guillotine  he  said  that  he  did  not 
think  that  they  would  punish  him  so  severely  as 
that,  on  account  of  his  youth;  that  he  thought,  at 
the  worst,  if  he  committed  the  crime,  he  would 
only  be  sent  to  a  reformatory. 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  235 

In  this  city  acts  of  lawlessness  of  a  nature  one 
would  never  have  thought  of  as  likely  to  be  com- 
mitted by  children  are  frequently  perpetrated. 
One's  highest  form  of  property  right  is  probably 
the  ownership  of  a  home,  or  other  form  of  landed 
property.  One  would  think  investments  in  this 
secure,  and  would  be  surprised  to  learn  that  one 
of  the  dangers  connected  with  such  an  investment 
would  be  found  in  the  possibility  of  depredations 
upon  it  by  children, — that  your  house  might  be  at- 
tacked by  children.  Not  long  ago  a  case  of  this 
very  nature,  similar  to  many  others  which  had 
occurred,  was  brought  before  the  Police  Court, 
where  serious  damage  had  been  done  to  property 
by  a  set  of  children  stealing  the  fixtures  out  of 
it.  The  mild  reproof  given  the  youthful  offenders 
was  enough  to  encourage  and  embolden  others. 
A  few  years  ago  in  this  city  every  night  for  a 
month  or  so  a  fire  in  the  down-town  section  broke 
out.  The  existence  of  the  city  itself  was  thus 
endangered  time  and  again,  and  the  greatest  dis- 
aster was  only  avoided  by  the  alertness  and  effici- 
ency of  the  firemen.  At  last  the  cause  of  the  con- 
stant ringing  of  the  fire-alarm  was  unearthed  by 
the  detectives,  and  a  band  of  children,  who  had 
amused  themselves  in  this  way,  was  brought  to 
light.  Their  punishment  was  of  the  lightest  na- 
ture. 

A  few  days  after  this  was  written  the  papers 
told  us  of  the  following  state  of  affairs  in  our 
neighboring  city  across  the  river: 


236          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"Efforts  are  being  made  by  the  police  to  appre- 
hend some  of  the  boys  who  are  destroying  prop- 
erty about  the  city. 

"Complaint  after  comlaint  has  been  made  at 
headquarters  regarding  the  destructive  element. 
The  boys  have  been  throwing  rocks  at  doors,  and 
otherwise  damaging  property  with  fireworks.  In 
spite  of  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  to  appre- 
hend them,  they  have  managed  to  elude  arrest. 

"It  is  likely  that  severe  penalties  will  be  im- 
posed upon  the  perpetrators  of  these  offenses,  if 
they  are  caught." 

From  these  local  matters  we  pass  to  the  fol- 
lowing of  a  national  nature,  which  we  believe  it 
would  never  in  the  past,  under  a  better  system  of 
home  discipline,  have  occurred  to  such  a  youth  to 
imagine : 

"New  York,  December  12. —  Y.,  a  seventeen- 
year-old  boy,  who  is  alleged  to  have  declared  that 
he  was  going  over  to  New  Jersey  and  shoot  Presi- 
dent-elect Wilson,  was  arrested  here  this  after- 
noon and  held  without  bail.  A  loaded  revolver 
was  found  in  his  pocket. 

"The  youth  was  standing  in  front  of  a  police 
station  shivering  in  the  cold  when  a  detective  ques- 
tioned him.  'This  is  not  a  fit  country  to  live  in/ 
he  declared,  according  to  the  detective.  'It's  no 
place  for  me  to  work,  I  cannot  go  back  to  Russia, 
so  I  would  rather  go  to  jail;  but  I  would  like 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  237 

to  shoot  Wilson  and  my  boss  and  all  the  judges 
first1 " 

"Atlanta,  Ga.,  December  21,  1912. — The  un- 
usual spectacle  of  a  small  child  on  trial  for  taking 
the  life  of  a  playmate  was  presented  here  to-day, 
when  seven-year-old  X.  was  arraigned  for  the 
killing  of  Z.,  aged  seven,  at  C.  S.,  near  here,  De- 
cember 5.  Judge  J.  T.  P.  made  no  decision  in  the 
case  pending  an  examination  of  the  child's  mental 
condition. 

"It  was  brought  out  that  the  X.  boy  was  an 
almost  constant  user  of  tobacco  in  all  forms.  The 
boys  are  said  to  have  quarreled,  after  which 
young  X.  ran  into  the  house  and  securing  a  rifle, 
stood  on  the  porch  and  shot  the  Y.  boy  as  he 
passed  the  house,  the  bullet  entering  the  brain." 

"Charleston,  S.  C.,  December  27. — A.  was  shot 
and  seriously  wounded  here  to-night  with  a  parlor 
rifle  by  B.,  aged  ten.  When  the  B.  boy  was 
brought  to  the  police  station  by  his  father  he  told 
the  desk  sergeant  that  A.  and  some  other  boys 
had  been  bullying  him.  Remembering  the  parlor 
rifle  which  he  had  received  as  a  Christmas  gift, 
the  boy  secured  it  and  shot  A.  in  the  abdomen." 

"Richmond,  Va.,  February  5. — Caught  placing 
spikes  on  the  rails  of  the  R.  F.  &  P.  last  night, 
A.  B.,  aged  five,  confessed  to  the  detectives  that 
he  had  made  four  attempts  to  wreck  trains,  en- 
dangering many  lives,  just  'to  see  the  engine  top- 
ple over  while  going  fast/ 


23 8          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

"Two  weeks  ago  he  wrecked  a  shifting  engine, 
the  engineer  and  the  fireman  having  narrow  es- 
capes from  death. 

"His  attempts  were  made  on  Belvidere  Street, 
where  the  road  passes  through  the  city. 

"The  youngster  was  given  into  the  custody  of 
his  parents  who  were  warned  to  keep  him  away 
from  the  railroad  tracks." 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  situation  in  regard  to  keeping  children  in 
order  is  steadily  becoming  worse,  and  under  the 
provisions  of  an  Act  intended  for  the  benefit  of 
Children  their  control  and  punishment  when  under 
seventeen  years  old,  become  more  and  more  diffi- 
cult. This  act,  approved  March  16,  1910,  is  in 
part  as  follows: 

uBe  it  enacted  by  the  general  assembly  of  Vir- 
ginia, That  every  court  of  record  of  general 
criminal  jurisdiction,  or  the  judge  thereof  in  vaca- 
tion, and  the  police  and  justices'  courts  are  hereby 
authorized  and  empowered  in  their  discretion  to 
commit  to  the  care  and  custody  of  any  society, 
association,  or  reformatory  approved  by  the  State 
board  of  charities  and  corrections,  and  chartered 
under  the  laws  of  this  State  for  the  care,  custody 
and  maintenance,  protection,  discipline  or  better- 
ment of  children,  any  child  under  seventeen  years 
of  age  who  is  charged  with  any  felony,  except 
rape,  and  never  having  been  heretofore  convicted 
in  any  court  of  a  misdemeanor  or  felony  under  the 
laws  of  Virginia,  or  who  is  charged  with  or  con- 
victed of  a  petty  crime  or  misdemeanor  or  any 
crime  or  infamous  offenses  punishable  as  a  mis- 
demeanor or  as  a  felony  and  not  exclusively  as  a 
felony,  and  all  cases  of  larceny,  or  any  child  under 

239 


24o          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

seventeen  years  of  age  who  is  vicious  or  depraved, 
a  persistent  truant,  destitute,  exposed  to  immoral 
or  vicious  influence,  or  who  is  generally  ill-treated 
or  neglected  by  his  parents,  guardian,  custodian, 
or  declared  by  such  to  be  incorrigible,  provided 
that  such  commitment  shall  cease  when  the  child 
s'hall  reach  the  age  of  twenty-one  years ;  and  such 
societies  and  associations  may  place  under  con- 
tract such  children  until  they  reach  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years  in  suitable  family  homes,  institu- 
tions or  training  schools  for  the  care  of  children, 
but  whenever  such  child  shall  be  so  placed  else- 
where a  report  of  such  action  s;hall  be  made  to  the 
State  board  of  charities  and  corrections  in  such 
form  as  may  be  required  by  it.  All  juvenile  of- 
fenders, managed  or  controlled  under  the  pro- 
vision of  this  act,  shall  be  deemed  not  to  be 
criminals  and  shall  not  be  treated  as  such. 

"No  court,  unless  the  offense  is  aggravated,  or 
the  ends  of  justice  demand  otherwise,  shall  sen- 
tence or  commit  a  child  under  seventeen  years  of 
age  charged  with  or  proven  to  have  been  guilty 
of  any  crime  named  in  section  one  to  a  jail,  work- 
house, or  police  station,  or  send  such  child  on  to 
the  grand  jury,  nor  sentence  such  child  to  the  peni- 
tentiary; but  such  child  may  be  committed,  after 
hearing  is  'had,  as  is  hereinafter  provided,  to  any 
society  or  association  formed  for  the  purpose 
specified  in  section  one  of  this  act;  or  the  court, 
or  the  judge  above  mentioned,  may  commit  such 
a  child  to  a  reformatory  under  the  laws  now  or 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  241 

hereinafter  provided  for  such  commitment. 
Nothing  herein  shall  prevent  the  imposition  of 
such  punishment  as  is  prescribed  by  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  Virginia  for  the  offense  with  which 
such  child  is  charged,  when  no  society  or  associa- 
tion or  reformatory  will  accept  such  child,  and 
under  such  circumstances  the  court  may  make  such 
commitment  or  disposition  of  such  child  as  it  may 
deem  best. 

"That  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  court,  or 
the  judge  mentioned  above,  in  a  proper  disposi- 
tion of  cases  and  matters  enumerated  in  section 
one  of  this  act,  the  societies  or  associations  or 
reformatories  referred  to  in  said  section  are  here- 
by authorized  and  empowered,  with  the  consent 
of  the  court,  to  designate  one  or  more  of  their 
officers  or  employees,  probation  officers  for  the 
court,  whose  duty  shall  be  to  make  such  investiga- 
tion of  cases  involving  children  under  seventeen 
years  of  age  as  the  court  may  direct,  to  be  present 
in  court  in  order  to  represent  the  interest  of  the 
child  when  the  case  is  heard,  to  furnish  the  court 
such  information  and  assistance  as  the  court  or 
judge  may  require,  and  to  take  charge  of  any  such 
child  before  and  after  the  trial  as  may  be  directed 
by  the  court,  or  judge  above  mentioned,  and  to 
perform  such  other  duties  as  the  court  may  confer 
upon  him.  No  probation  officer  shall  receive  any 
compensation  for  his  services  from  the  treasury 
of  the  State,  except  when  traveling  by  order  of 
the  court,  when  he  shall,  upon  certificate  of  such 


242  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

judge,  receive  such  mileage  as  is  paid  Common- 
wealth's witnesses  for  similar  services  and  in 
the  same  manner. 

"That  the  court,  or  the  judge  above  mentioned, 
shall  also  have  power  and  is  hereby  authorized, 
at  its  discretion,  to  relea'se  any  juvenile  for  any 
offense  mentioned  in  section  one  of  this  act  under 
the  care  of  a  probation  officer  for  a  probationary 
period  not  exceeding  one  year,  who  shall  cause 
such  child  to  return  to  court  at  the  end  of  such 
term  either  for  sentence  or  dismissal;  such  re- 
leased child  shall  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  for  such  period,  and  shall  be  subject  to  such 
rules  and  regulations  touching  the  welfare  of  the 
child  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  court.  In  case 
such  a  released  child  shall  fail  to  keep  or  disre- 
gard the  terms  of  his  probation,  the  court,  or  the 
judge  thereof  in  vacation,  shall  have  the  power 
to  cause  such  diild  to  be  brought  before  it  for 
further  proceedings,  and  to  be  dealt  with  in  such 
manner  as  may  appear  to  be  for  the  best  interest 
of  the  child." 

The  next  section  of  this  enactment  provides  for 
the  appointment  of  "probationary  officers"  from 
among  the  police  force  of  the  city  and  defines 
their  duties.  Then  it  is  provided  that  if  at  the 
trial  of  the  child  the  evidence  be  sufficient  to 
justify  a  conviction  or  to  send  the  child  on  to  a 
grand  jury,  "the  court  is  empowered  to  act  under 
the  provisions  of  this  statute  as  to  the  disposition 
of  said  child."  A  right  of  appeal  is  reserved  in 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  243 

favor  of  the  diild  from  any  judgment  which  may 
be  rendered  against  him,  and  the  appellate  court 
is  given  the  same  powers  as  the  original  court  as 
to  the  disposition  of  the  child. 

Any  attempt  to  remove  the  child  is  made  a 
"contempt  of  court,"  a  favorite  modern  method 
of  subverting  constitutional  guarantees  of  the 
liberty  and  rights  of  the  citizen  by  thus  arbi- 
trarily placing  him  in  the  power,  and  at  the  dis- 
cretion, of  a  judge,  who  can  proceed  to  punish 
him  by  confinement  or  fine  without  the  interven- 
tion of  a  jury.  The  less  we  hear  of  this  in  our 
enactments  the  better,  for  this  extension  of  the 
doctrine  of  contempt  of  court  is  a  step  toward 
tyranny. 

The  next  section  puts  the  associations  for  re- 
ceiving children  under  the  supervision  of  the 
State  board  of  chanties  and  corrections,  and  re- 
quires them  to  furnish  statements  as  to  their 
condition  and  management  to  any  court  or  judge 
upon  demand. 

"Upon  petition  of  any  reputable  citizen  under 
oath  that  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  have 
been,  or  are  being,  violated  by  any  one,  or  by  any 
institution,  the  court,  or  the  judge  thereof  in 
vacation,  having  jurisdiction  over  the  locality 
where  such  persons  reside  or  such  institution  is 
located,  may  cause  such  person  or  institution  by 
proper  process  to  appear  before  the  court,  or  the 
judge  thereof  in  vacation,  at  such  time,  and  at 
such  place  within  such  locality  as  the  process  may 


244          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

name,  and  may  enter  judgment  or  order  as  the 
ends  of  justice  may  require. 

"The  court,  or  any  judge  authorized  to  act 
hereunder  in  vacation,  and  all  officers  performing 
any  act  or  executing  any  process  under  this  act, 
are  vested  with  >all  incidental  powers  necessary  to 
the  effectual  execution  of  the  object  and  purpose  of 
this  act." 

What  this  means  it  would  be  difficult  to  say, 
except  that  a  veiled  and  formidable  power  is  given 
to  the  court  or  the  judge  to  do  something  to  some- 
body, without  the  safeguard  of  a  trial  by  jury. 

"This  act  shall  be  construed  liberally  as  to  its 
objects  and  powers,  to  the  end  that  its  purpose 
may  be  carried  out,  to  wit:  that  the  care,  custody, 
and  discipline  of  the  child  may  approximate  as 
nearly  as  may  be  that  which  should  be  by  its 
parents,  and  prevent  the  child,  where  possible, 
from  the  stigma  of  jail  and  the  contaminating  in- 
fluences of  association  with  criminals. 

"Words  in  this  act  importing  the  masculine 
gender  must  be  applied  to  include  girls  under 
seventeen  years  of  age."  (Acts  1910,  434-7.) 

A  child  over  sixteen  years  old,  strong  in  body 
and  mind,  who  well  knows  the  difference  between 
right  and  wrong,  having  committed  a  felony, — 
the  killing  of  an  old  relative  for  her  money,  for 
instance, — is,  according  to  this  statute,  to  be 
treated  as  nearly  as  possible  with  the  care,  custody, 
and  discipline  which  it  should  receive  from  its 
parents.  Will  the  Legislature  please  define  what 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  245 

are  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  parents  under 
the  law  of  Virginia  under  such,  or  any  other, 
circumstances?  We  all  know  perfectly  well  what 
the  powers,  rights,  and  duties  of  the  father  ought 
to  be.  The  law  and  the  customs  of  the  race  up  to 
a  few  years  ago  taught  us  that.  But  the  special 
work  of  the  Legislature  has  of  late  years  been 
to  destroy  this  power.  What  is  now  left  of  it 
that  could  be  intelligently  set  before  one  to  aid 
him  in  understanding  what  that  statute  really 
enacts,  when  it  uses  the  words  "discipline  of 
parents?" 

To  understand  this  act,  it  might  be  well  to  say 
that  a  felony  is  any  act  punishable  by  death  or 
confinement  in  the  penitentiary.  Other  offenses, 
less  severely  punished,  are  classed  as  misde- 
meanors. 

This  act  has  been  in  force  in  Virginia  for  only 
three  years.  The  record  of  the  Acts  of  that 
Session  of  the  Legislature  shows  that  it  was  ap- 
proved by  the  Governor  the  same  day  on  which 
he  approved  other  Acts  covering  122  pages  of 
closely  printed  matter. 

Under  its  provisions  a  privileged  class  of 
criminals  is  legally  established, — all  persons  under 
seventeen  years  old.  Jury  trials  as  to  these  are 
swept  away,  and  the  judge  is  given  a  discretion 
as  to  their  disposition.  Equality  before  the  law 
is  overthrown.  If  the  youthful  criminal,  now 
specially  declared  by  the  act  not  to  be  a  criminal, 
nor  to  be  treated  as  one,  have  attractive  qualities., 


246  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

he  or  she  may  be  dealt  with  leniently,  while  it  is 
stated  that  nothing  in  the  act  "shall  prevent  the 
imposition  of  such  punishment  as  is  prescribed  by 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Virginia  for  the  offense 
with  which  such  child  is  charged,  when  no  society 
or  association  or  reformatory  will  accept  such 
child,  and  under  such  circumstances  the  court  may 
make  such  commitment  or  disposition  of  such 
child  as  it  may  deem  best."  A  youth  is  thus  to 
be  punished,  not  according  to  a  fixed  rule  of  law, 
but  according  to  whether  such  a  society  choose  to 
come  forward  and  shield  him,  or  not.  An  ugly 
and  unattractive  child  may  commit  some  lesser 
crime  and  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary.  A  fully 
developed  youth,  16  years,  n  months,  and  29 
days  old,  may  commit  murder,  highway  robbery, 
arson,  burglary,  or  piracy,  and  may  be  allowed  to 
go  practically  unpunished.  Every  youth  in  the 
Commonwealth,  although  he  or  she  may  have  long 
since  arrived  at  a  full  knowledge  of  right  and 
wrong,  is  practically  allowed  to  commit  one  mur- 
der, or  burn  up  one  house,  or  help  to  hold  up  and 
rob  one  train,  or  blow  up  one  house  with  dyna- 
mite, or  derail  one  train,  or  commit  any  other 
one  felony  or  misdemeanor,  with  comparative  im- 
punity. So  long  as  it  can  be  proved  that  he  or 
she  has  never  ubeen  heretofore  convicted  in  any 
court  of  a  misdemeanor  or  felony  under  the  laws 
of  Virginia,"  they  are,  by  this  act,  more  or  less 
immune  from  punishment.  A  young  ruffian  from 
a  neighboring  State  who  has  committeed  crimes 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  247 

there,  and  been  convicted  and  punished  for  them, 
or  offenders  in  Virginia  who  escaped  conviction, 
would  still  have  their  one  crime  allowed  them  for 
which,  under  this  statute,  they  would  not  be 
adequately  punished. 

The  court  is  expressly  prohibited  from  punish- 
ing them  by  the  usual  methods  of  punis'hmerit, 
"unless  the  offense  is  aggravated,  or  the  ends  of 
justice  demand  otherwise."  What  does  this 
mean?  Criminal  laws  should  be  clear,  and  crimes 
have  heretofore  been  as  sharply  and  accurately 
defined  as  possible.  This  act  leaves  it  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  trial  judge  to  decide  the  indefinite 
question,  what  crime  is  an  aggravated  crime,  and 
when  the  ends  of  justice  require  real  instead  of 
formal  punishment.  We  are  all  in  danger  of  fall- 
ing under  a  new  form  of  tyranny  when  those  who 
take  our  lives  or  injure  our  property  are  to  be 
punished  only  according  to  discretionary  powers 
given  to  the  criminal  courts.  The  system  of  law 
we  live  under  has  carefully  confined  discretionary 
power  to  courts  of  Chancery,  and  held  the  courts 
of  law,  especially  on  their  criminal  side,  to  acting 
only  according  to  fixed  rules.  We  are  courting 
danger  when  we  abandon  that  principle. 

Take,  for  example,  the  murder  of  a  father  by 
a  wayward  son  whom  he  had  corrected  and  tried 
to  make  behave  himself.  This  is  >a  felony,  and 
only  a  felony.  It  is  therefore  included  as  to  the 
protection  of  its  perpetrator  by  this  act.  Is  not 
any  real,  deliberate,  premeditated  murder  a 


248  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

serious  enough  offense  to  deserve  punishment, 
without  the  necessity  of  proving  that  the  particular 
"offense  is  aggravated,"  or  that  "the  ends  of 
justice  demand"  other  punishment  than  being  sent 
to  a  reformatory? 

So  serious  are  these  matters  that  it  hardly  seems 
worth  while  noticing  that  this  act  also  authorizes 
the  breaking  up  of  families  by  taking  the  children 
away  from  their  parents  on  a  variety  of  grounds. 
If  your  child  be  "vicious  or  depraved,  a  persistent 
truant,  destitute,  exposed  to  immoral  or  vicious 
influence,"  or  if  he  or  she  be  "generally  ill-treated 
or  neglected  by  his  parents,  guardian,  custodian, 
or  declared  by  such  to  be  incorrigible,"  he  or  she 
may  be  taken  from  you,  and  put  in  a  reformatory. 

This  act  and  the  others  of  a  kindred  nature 
herein  criticised  are  not  to  be  judged  singly,  one 
by  one,  but  as  a  whole.  Together  they  constitute 
the  system,  such  as  it  is,  which  has  been  worked 
out  to  overthrow  the  natural  construction  of 
domestic  life  which  has  come  down  to  us  through 
the  ages,  and  which  was  in  harmony  with  the  rules 
laid  down  for  man's  guidance  in  the  Bible.  All 
the  matters  now  clumsily  provided  for  under  such 
enactments  as  these  fell  under,  and  were  regulated 
by,  the  paternal  authority,  which  so  many  of  the 
modern  legislatures,  at  the  request  apparently  of 
anybody  who  says  "women"  or  "children"  to 
them,  seem  willing  to  permit  to  be  utterly  extin- 
guished. The  father  had  jurisdiction  of  all  these 
matters  thus  recently  delegated  to  courts  and 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  249 

judges.  In  attempting  to  rewrite  and  remold 
society,  to  destroy  the  family  and  the  parental 
authority,  what  grotesque  efforts  are  made  by 
those  who  write  these  laws!  What  extravagant 
provisions  and  what  unintended  consequences  and 
conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  the  words  they 
recklessly  employ!  The  reading  of  these  enact- 
ments suggests  to  one's  mind  the  confused  twist- 
ings,  turnings,  and  crossings  of  the  footprints  left 
upon  soft  earth  by  one  who  has  wandered  about  it 
in  the  darkness.  There  in  the  clear  light  of  his- 
tory, common  sense,  and  the  Bible  lies  the  straight 
and  simple  path  of  the  paternal  authority,  leading 
to  peace  and  order,  through  the  tangled  jungle  of 
courts,  judges,  probation  officers,  juvenile  courts, 
State  boards,  police  justices,  policemen,  and  all  the 
other  cumbersome  paraphernalia  and  machinery 
of  the  illogical  attempt  at  a  system  which  is  being 
built  up  to  overshadow  and  obliterate  it. 

When  the  turn  is  taken  to  the  left  from  the 
level,  well-graded,  and  well-known  highway  by 
which  the  nations  of  the  earth  have  moved 
through  their  -several  developments,  and  the  coach 
of  State  began  rolling  rapidly  along  the  down 
grade  on  which  it  is  now  speeding,  in  what  can  it 
end  but  an  abyss  ? 

When  the  inevitable  reaction  against  the  policy 
of  attacking  husbands  and  fathers  sets  in,  this  act 
should  be  one  of  the  first  repealed.  We  doubt 
very  much  if  there  ever  were  even  plausible 
ground  for  its  adoption.  The  age  limit  is  much 


25o          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

too  high.  The  juries  of  the  country  could  always 
be  relied  on  not  to  be  too  severe  with  young  per- 
sons. Keeping  children  out  of  jail  and  from  its 
evil  effects  is  very  well,  but  some  adequate  sub- 
stitute in  the  way  of  proper  punishment  ought  to 
be  adopted  instead  of  the  provisions  of  this  act. 
Real  offenders  should  not  lie  on  a  bed  of  roses, 
and  no  one's  rights  are  safe  either  as  to  life  or 
property,  if  the  law  allow  any  class  of  privileged 
offenders.  Men,  women,  and  children  all  should 
be  made  to  obey  the  law. 


CHAPTER  VII 

The  responsibility  for  the  laxity  in  the  bring- 
ing up  of  children  we  charge  to  the  women. 
The  women,  as  it  were,  bring  in  as  allies  with 
them  the  children  in  the  modern  attacks  upon 
men.  It  is  in  relation  to  the  women  and  the 
children  that  men  are  attacked,  and  the  tendency 
of  the  women  is  to  break  down  the  better  disci- 
pline which  the  men  would  enforce  in  the  family 
life.  The  present  disorder  is  the  result  of 
women's  domestic  government.  They  are  too 
weak  and  too  tender-hearted  to  control  wayward 
children;  and,  as  the  father's  authority  declines, 
the  recklessness  and  the  lawlessness  of  children 
increases.  No  observer  of  the  course  of  affairs  of 
the  last  score  of  years  has  failed  to  note  a  serious 
decline  in  the  manners  and  the  actions  of  children. 
They  are  getting  to  be  as  much  a  byword  as  the 
American  husband.  The  other  day  a  French 
nurse  on  an  ocean  steamer  reproved  the  children 
under  her  care  by  telling  them  that  they  must  not 
do  such  or  such  a  thing,  because  people  might,  on 
account  of  their  being  so  bad,  think  that  they 
were  American  children. 

Thinking  men  have  for  a  long  time  expressed 
concern  at  the  general  disorder,  the  laxity  of 
discipline,  the  lowering  of  standards,  and  a  vari- 

251 


252          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ety  of  other  alarming  national  symptoms  which 
indicate  an  unwholesome  condition  of  affairs  in 
this  country.  What  is  the  matter  with  the  United 
States?  This  is  answered  in  three  words, — too 
much  women;  not  too  many, — too  much. 

The  great  ship  of  state  of  the  United  States  of 
America  is  in  greater  risk  of  shipwreck  from  run- 
ning blindly  and  recklessly  upon  the  sands  of 
women  and  children  than  from  any  other  danger 
now  visible  above  the  horizon.  When  this  coun- 
try is  fully  run  on  the  basis,  and  according  to  the 
ideas,  of  women  and  children  it  will  be  time  for 
all  sensible  men  to  move  out  of  it. 

The  effect  on  the  child  himself  is  probably  the 
worst  thing  about  the  whole  system.  It  gives  to 
extreme  youth  an  idea  of  its  own  importance  that 
is  radically  wrong.  It  fosters  independence  of 
children  from  their  parents,  encourages  disobedi- 
ence, impatience  under  and  contempt  for  author- 
ity, and  produces  bad,  disrespectful,  and  dis- 
obedient children,  who  grow  up  to  be  unruly,  bad 
citizens,  strikers  and  lynchers.  In  the  training 
within  the  domestic  circle  the  foundations  should 
be  laid  for  good  citizenship.  Law-abiding  citizens 
must  have  this  training  in  the  paternal  authority 
of  their  own  homes.  Break  down  .paternal  au- 
thority, and  you  break  down  respect  for  all  au- 
thority. Break  up  and  ruin  the  authority  which 
should  exist  in  the  head  of  every  family,  and  you 
break  up  the  authority  which  should  exist  in  the 
State  itself. 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  253 

There  can  be  no  subtraction  from,  nor  addi- 
tion to,  the  sum  total  of  the  rights,  the  privileges, 
the  liabilities,  and  the  duties  enjoyed  by,  or  laid 
upon,  mankind  as  a  whole.  They  have  all  existed 
at  all  times  in  the  past,  and  will  exist  at  all  times 
in  the  future.  The  only  real  effect  produced  by 
these  changes  is  to  cause  a  rearrangement  of 
them, — taking  them  from  one  and  putting  them 
on  another,  shifting  around  merely. 

The  modern  plan  is  to  take  every  power  from 
the  father  and  give  it  to  the  judge.  Judges  are 
appointed  to  preside  over  courts,  in  order  to 
decide  law  suits  and  criminal  prosecutions.  This 
is  enough  to  keep  them  busy.  This  new  scheme  is 
to  add  to  these  duties  the  unjudicial  one  of  mak- 
ing them  the  nurses  and  guardians  of  all  the 
minors  within  their  jurisdictions.  What  interest 
is  a  judge  going  to  take  in  the  care  and  custody 
of  a  lot  of  infants,  or  in  the  care  and  manage- 
ment of  their  estates,  compared  to  the  interest 
that  would  be  taken  by  the  fathers  who  brought 
them  into  existence,  and  who  are  responsible  for 
their  support? 

The  home  broken  up,  what  becomes  of  the 
children?  Here  is  the  situation  in  California, 
which  has  but  just  now  taken  a  further  step  in 
the  destruction  of  the  domestic  circle  by  entitling 
women  to  vote : 

"Sacramento,  Cal.,  January  13. — That  fifty-one 
per  cent,  of  the  boys  in  the  State  reform  schools 


254          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

owe  their  condition  to  homes  broken  up  by  divorce 
is  the  finding  of  the  Board  of  Charities  and  Cor- 
rections, which  has  filed  a  report  with  the  gov- 
ernor for  the  year.  It  says : 

"  'The  general  social  and  economic  conditions, 
the  lack  of  home  training,  the  breaking  down  of 
the  home  and  the  indiscriminate  rush  for  cheap 
amusements  and  unbridled  pleasures,  are  given  as 
the  causes  for  the  downfall  of  boys  and  girls 
of  to-day.  Statistics  show  that  fifty-one  per  cent 
of  the  boys  in  one  of  our  State  reform  schools 
were  from  homes  broken  up  by  divorce.'  " 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Two  large  buildings  claim  jurisdiction  over  the 
subject  of  marriage  and  divorce, — the  Church  and 
the  Court-house.  The  Church,  in  what  has  now 
become  a  rather  feeble  and  faltering  way,  is  still 
on  the  side  of  the  man.  The  Court-house  is  on 
the  side  of  the  woman.  Another  large  building, 
the  theatre  throws  the  whole  of  its  usually  bale- 
ful influence  in  this  instance  on  the  side  of  the 
Court-house,  a  building  with  which  it  is  not  much 
accustomed  to  ally  itself.  Between  these  two 
great  millstones,  as  we  may  call  them,  husbands 
and  fathers  are  being  ground  to  pieces.  The 
nether  millstone,  the  Court-house,  is  particularly 
severe  on  the  husbands,  while  the  upper  millstone, 
the  theatre,  reserves  its  severest  treatment  for 
the  fathers. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  theater  holds  the 
fathers,  instead  of  the  husbands,  up  to  public 
hatred.  Presenting  love  scenes,  and  working  out 
love  stories,  is  the  principal  stock  in  trade  of 
theaters.  A  man,  just  at  the  age  he  is  apt  to 
marry,  is  brought  upon  the  stage,  where  he  meets 
a  damsel  in  the  corresponding  condition  of  life. 
Beyond  this  age  the  stage  has  little  use  for  men 
and  women.  Prior  to  it,  it  has  none.  The  bur- 
den of  nearly  every  modern  drama  is  the  play 

255 


256  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  the  attractive  forces  bringing  these  two  units 
finally  together.  To  attack  husbands,  as  the 
Legislature  attacks  them,  would  tend  to  ruin  by 
presenting  in  an  undesirable  light  their  one  special 
theme, — that  of  making  married  men  or,  more 
strictly  speaking,  engaged  men,  out  of  the  stage 
heroes.  The  playwrights  seldom  or  never  at- 
tempt to  represent  the  happiness  the  husbands  fi- 
nally have  when  their  dreams  are  realized.  They 
stop  short  of  this,  and  warily  present  the  happi- 
ness which  the  heroes  think  they  are  going  to 
have, — "Man  never  is,  but  always  to  be  blest." 

But  with  the  father  the  situation,  and  their 
treatment  of  him,  is  very  different.  He  belongs 
to  the  post-graduate  class, — a  class  for  which  the 
stage  has  little  use,  and  no  sympathy.  The  stage 
is  ante-nuptial,  except  where  an  unhappy  marriage 
is  attacked.  The  father  is  therefore  out  of  its 
zone  of  active  operations,  and  as  he  can  so  easily 
be  presented  as  interfering  with,  obstructing,  or 
even  perverting  what  it  considers  the  proper  cur- 
rent of  the  flow  of  his  beautiful  daughter's  affec- 
tions, he  soon  passes  over  into  the  usual  position 
of  a  formal  enemy.  He  therefore  is  made  to 
appear  before  us  as  a  hard-hearted  creature,  who 
for  unworthy  motives  desires  to  marry  his 
daughter  to  the  villain;  or  as  being  so  stupid  that 
he  thinks  she  loves  the  villain  instead  of  the  hero; 
or  as  a  terrible  drunkard,  who  wrecks  the  family; 
or  as  a  weak  creature  supported  by  his  unselfish 
and  overworked  daughter;  or  as  a  gambler  whose 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  257. 

passion  for  play  impoverishes  the  invalid  mother, 
supported  alone  by  the  saintly  daughter;  or  as  a 
criminal  whose  career  of  shame  or  violence 
threatens  at  any  time  to  become  known  and  to 
blight  the  life  of  his  angel  child;  and  so  on,  and 
so  forth,  ad  infnitum. 

It  is  not  quite  so  apparent  why  the  Legislature 
has  been  more  severe  in  its  treatment  of  husbands 
than  of  fathers,  unless  this  character  presents 
more  clearly  the  question  of  the  strong  against 
the  weak,  with  no  regard  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
policy  of  having  a  recognized  head.  In  most 
cases  the  two  characters  of  husband  and  father 
are  borne  by  one  and  the  same  person,  but  we 
find  that  it  is  the  husband  who  is  primarily  at- 
tacked; the  position  of  the  father  is  merely  con- 
sequential, and  falls  into  the  same  general  line 
of  thought  and  treatment  as  that  of  the  husband. 
The  Legislature,  seeing  so  many  persons  marry, 
seems  to  think  that  nothing  it  may  do  will  ever 
have  any  effect  in  breaking  up  the  natural  tendency 
which  causes  young  men  to  love  young  women. 
Here,  they  seem  to  think,  is  a  subject  of  legisla- 
tion which  cannot  escape  them,  and  which  they 
can  regulate  to  their  hearts'  content.  Their  se- 
vere rules  are  intended  to  operate  upon  a  class 
supposed  to  be  the  best  able  of  any  to  bear  hard- 
ships,— young  men, — the  class  out  of  which  the 
armies  of  the  world  have  always  been  formed. 
They  need  no  assistance,  and  deserve  no  sympa- 
thy. Pile  everything  on  them  therefore  that  can 


258  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

be  put  upon  them.  They  are  young  men  as  con- 
trasted with  old  men,  and  men  as  contrasted  with 
women.  Therefore  put  everything  in  the  way  of 
a  burden,  a  duty,  or  a  liability  upon  them.  Their 
shoulders  are  broad,  and  they  can  bear  it.  If 
they  cannot,  it  is  their  own  fault. 

Apparently  with  some  such  idea  in  its  mind, 
that  body  has  proceeded  step  by  step, — first,  to 
take  away  nearly  all  the  property  rights  which  a 
husband  acquired  by  virtue  of  the  marriage;  and, 
after  practically  exhausting  this  field  of  legisla- 
tion, it  'began  these  unheard-of  attacks  directly 
upon  the  persons  of  .husbands,  by  putting  them  in 
jail  for  failure  to  do  their  duty,  and  so  forth. 
One  would  think  from  these  enactments  that,  to 
need  all  this  regulating,  the  husbands  of  the 
United  States  must  have  been  the  worst  set  of 
men  in  the  world,  while  the  fact  has  probably 
been  that  they  have  been  the  most  long-suffering 
and  patient  men  who  ever  walked  the  earth. 

If  the  fathers  were  declared  by  law  to  be  en- 
titled to  their  children's  money,  it  would  fall  far 
short  of  compensating  them  for  the  support  of 
the  children.  It  is  going  to  be  the  children's  any- 
way, after  the  parents'  death;  then  why  are  the 
children  so  protected  from  their  parents?  If  it 
be  all  needed  in  the  support  of  the  family,  let 
it  be  so  used. 

If  the  fathers  were  given  again  their  proper 
powers  and  rights  with  reference  to  the  children, 
nearly  all  the  associations  formed  to  take  care  of 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  259 

them,  and  to  take  them  away  from  their  parents, 
could  go  out  of  business.  It  would  be  much  bet- 
ter for  the  race  if  they  would  spend  their  time 
and  energies  and  their  surprising  skill  in  effecting 
legislation  in  the  task  of  rehabilitating  the  fathers 
of  America  in  those  rights  which  they  have  been 
so  zealous  in  taking  away  from  them. 

An  actual  case,  beautifully  illustrating  these  en- 
lightened principles  in  dealing  with  the  heads  of 
families,  is  embalmed  for  the  philosophic  student 
of  our  social  and  domestic  construction  in  a  judg- 
ment which  can  be  found  in  Judgment  Docket  5, 
page  52,  of  the  Circuit  Court  for  Norfolk 
County,  where  a  daughter,  after  having  been 
taken  care  of  by  her  old  father  until  her  mar- 
riage, after  that  event  sued  him  and  got  judgment 
against  him  for  $151.70,  being  an  amount  of 
money  which  she  had  derived  from  an  estate 
which  had  come  into  his  hands  as  her  guardian, 
and  which  he  had  spent.  Her  father,  being 
embarrassed,  was  unable  to  pay  the  judgment, 
and  he  sold  it  to  an  outside  person.  After 
having  brought  up,  educated,  and  supported  this 
child,  he  was  liable  to  be,  and  was,  sued  by 
her  for  this  sum,  as  if  she  were  an  outside 
creditor.  No  doubt  the  old  man  felt  all  the 
bitterness  of  the  pang  experienced  by  Lear  when 
he  said:  "How  sharper  than  a  serpent's  tooth 
it  is  to  have  a  thankless  child!" 

Indeed,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  old  man 


260  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

might  not,  in  addition  to  suffering  the  judgment 
against  him,  have  also  been  put  into  the  penitenti- 
ary, on  the  ground  of  having  embezzled  the 
money  which  belonged  to  his  daughter. 

If  the  father  occupied  the  proper  relation  to 
the  children's  estates,  there  would  be  little  need 
of  guardians,  guardian  ad  litem,  curators,  and 
next  friends.  The  world  could  then  conduct  its 
affairs  on  an  adult  basis. 

The  Legislature  could  render  eminent  service 
to  this  Commonwealth  by  never  passing  another 
statute  on  this  subject,  and  instead  of  doing  so 
by  carefully  revising  all  these  laws,  repealing  most 
of  them,  and  amending  the  others,  so  as  to  re- 
establish paternal  authority  in  the  home,  the  foun- 
tainhead  of  all  respect  for  civil  authority  in  the 
State. 

These  legislative  ideas  come  to  Virginia  from 
the  Northern  and  Western  States.  The  theory 
they  all  go  on  is  that  the  father,  instead  of  being 
the  real  parent  of  the  children,  is  merely  a  trustee 
with  reference  to  them,  and  if  he  do  not  admin- 
ister his  trust  according  to  these  legislative  ideas 
of  how  he  should  administer  it,  he  will  not  only 
be  turned  out  of  office, — that  is,  lose  the  custody 
of  the  child, — but  be  heavily  fined  and  flung  into 
prison. 

What  the  theory  is  that  they  are  trying  to 
work  out  in  respect  to  the  relation  which  the  hus- 
band bears  to  his  wife  we  are  really  unable  to 
say.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  any  dignified 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  261 

position  at  all  with  regard  to  her.  To  make  him 
a  mere  drudge,  who  has  to  earn  enough  to  supply 
her  wants,  and  be  held  liable  to  imprisonment  the 
instant  he  fail  in  this  regard,  seems  to  be  about 
what  is  aimed  at. 

Surely  we  have  nothing  to  learn  from  States 
which  hold  such  views,  except  to  take  warning 
from  their  example. 

For  three  hundred  years  the  State  of  Vir- 
ginia managed  its  domestic  affairs  on  an  entirely 
different  theory,  and  found  no  need  for  criminal 
proceedings  to  make  the  men  of  our  State  willing 
to  support  the  women  they  married,  and  the  chil- 
dren which  were  given  them.  And  we  do  not 
need  them  now. 

Who  is  there  of  any  observation  who  believes 
that  these  new  laws  are  of  benefit  to  the  body 
politic?  Where  is  the  person  of  any  experience 
who  has  not  commented  upon  the  decline  in  the 
manners  and  behavior  of  children  in  the  past 
few  years?  The  more  the  State  legislates  them 
away  from  the  parental  authority,  the  worse  the 
children  are  becoming.  The  interference  of  the 
State  diminishes  the  attention  and  the  training 
they  receive  from  their  parents,  and  no  one  else 
takes  enough  interest  in  them  to  supply  the  loss. 
Legislate  them  entirely  from  their  parents,  break 
up  the  home  completely,  and  we  will  live  among  a 
race  of  barbarians,  who,  having  learned  to  submit 
to  no  domestic  authority  in  their  youth,  will  re- 
sist all  civil  authority  when  they  become  men. 


262  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

We  are  willing  to  give  the  credit  of  good  in- 
tentions to  the  persons  who  secure  the  line  of 
legislation  which  is  here  criticised,  but  we  believe 
they  do  not  appreciate  the  effect  of  their  efforts. 
Some  distressing  case  comes  to  their  notice,  and, 
in  order  to  relieve  such  a  situation,  they  run  right 
around  to  the  Legislature  with  a  bill  to  prevent 
such  a  thing's  happening  again.  In  this  way,  as 
it  has  been  often  said,  hard  cases  produce  bad 
laws.  The  rule  adopted  not  only  applies  to  that 
case,  but  affects  everybody,  and  probably  further 
undermines  the  natural  and  proper  construction 
of  society.  In  this  way  the  general  is  sacrificed 
to  the  particular.  Some  good  is  done,  and  more 
harm.  The  rule  is  ruined  in  fitting  it  to  the  ex- 
ception. 

It  is  due  to  the  final  result  of  this  proceeding 
that  the  criticism  has  been  made  that  the  United 
States  presents  not  an  edifying  construction,  but  a 
destruction,  of  society. 

This  breaking  up  of  the  family  and  the  home, 
resulting  from  the  annihilation  of  husbands  and 
fathers,  is  sententiously  spoken  of  by  those  who 
admire  it  as  "Western  individualism."  But  an- 
other view  taken  of  the  situation  is:  "We  are 
not  a  nation;  we  are  a  rabble."  If  we  are  not, 
we  certainly  will  become  so  under  the  laws  re- 
cently passed  affecting  family  life. 

To  prevent  fathers  from  being  put  in  jail  for 
innocently  transgressing  the  law,  it  is  suggested 
that  they  keep  about  them  always  a  list  of  the 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  263 

dates  of  the  births  of  their  children,  and  consult 
it  day  by  day  in  connection  with  the  following 
enactments.  What  may  be  lawful  to-morrow, 
your  child  having  passed  a  certain  birthday,  may 
be  unlawful  to-day.  One  cannot  be  too  careful 
when  fines  and  jail  sentences  hang  over  him.  For 
the  benefit,  therefore,  of  all  parents  who  wish  to 
keep  out  of  trouble,  the  following  schedule  of  the 
ages  of  their  children  is  prepared,  showing  when 
acts  are  and  are  not  lawful. 

Children  under  twelve  must  not  be  given  any 
toy  gun,  pistol,  rifle,  or  other  toy  firearm,  etc. 
(Section  3828  C.) 

Children  under  fourteen  years  of  age  must  not 
be  sold,  apprenticed,  let,  or  hired  out,  or  other- 
wise disposed  of  to  any  person  for  the  vocation 
of  rope  or  wire  walking,  begging  or  peddling,  or 
as  a  gymnast,  contortionist,  rider,  or  acrobat,  or 
for  any  obscene,  indecent,  or  immoral  purpose, 
exhibition,  or  practice,  Or  for  any  business,  exhibi- 
tion, or  vocation  injurious  to  the  health  or  morals, 
or  dangerous  <to  the  life  or  limb,  and  other  prohi- 
bitions too  numerous  to  mention.  (Acts  1895-6, 
p.  701.) 

Failure  to  provide  for  children  of  this  age  by 
the  parents  or  guardians,  if  of  sufficient  financial 
ability,  renders  them  liable  to  be  put  in  jail.  (Acts 
1910,  p.  570.) 

Children  under  sixteen  must  not  be  given  any 
cigarettes  or  tobacco,  nor  a  pistol,  dirk,  or  bowie- 
knife.  (Sec.  3828  B.) 


264  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

These  children  may  be  whipped  by  order  of  the 
Court.  (Acts  1897-8,  p.  859.) 

Children  under  seventeen  must  not  be  subjected 
to  vicious  or  immoral  influences.  Knowingly  to 
permit  them  to  be  guilty  of  vicious  or  immoral 
conduct,  or  sending  them  into  improper  places, 
such  as  wine  shops,  etc.,  is  illegal,  and  the  act 
punishable.  (Acts  1910,  p.  570.) 

Children  of  this  age  have,  however,  special 
privileges  and  immunities  allowed  them  as  to  com- 
mitting one  crime  each.  (Acts  1910,  434.) 

Children  under  eighteen,  being  vagrant,  dis- 
orderly, or  incorrigible,  or  charged  with  crime, 
may  be  taken  from  the  father  by  the  Prison  Asso- 
ciation. (Section  4173  D.) 

How  much  simpler  a  rule  of  law  it  would  be  to 
declare  that  all  children  should  be  placed  under 
the  care,  control,  and  management  of  their 
fathers,  or,  in  case  of  his  death  or  absence,  in 
that  of  their  mothers.  Other  exceptional  cases 
could,  of  course,  be  provided  for. 

Does  all  this  particularity  of  law  tend  to  in- 
crease the  regard  for  law,  or  rather  do  not  all 
these  divisions  and  minute  differences,  which  no 
one  can  remember,  tend  to  dull  the  regard  for 
all  law?  Our  legal  system  is  in  greater  danger 
from  breaking  down  by  its  own  weight  and  cum- 
bersomeness  than  from  any  other  cause.  And  it 
is  a  serious  danger  which  confronts  us.  How  is 
any  one  to  obey  the  law,  if  it  be  so  voluminous  that 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  265 

he  cannot  know  it,  or  so  complicated  that  he  can- 
not remember  it? 

This  line  of  legislation  must  disgust  most 
fathers.  If  Virginia  have  any  longer  any  inde- 
pendence of  thought,  these  statutes  can  be  care- 
fully examined,  and  the  policy  of  State  interfer- 
ence established  by  them  reversed.  There  would 
then  be  at  least  one  State  in  the  Union  where  a 
man  was  the  real  father  of  his  own  children, 
and  enjoyed  full  parental  authority.  The  State 
should  be  made  in  general  to  keep  outside  of 
the  family  circle,  to  keep  outside  the  front  door, 
and  let  every  father  within  the  peace  of  the 
Commonwealth,  high  or  low,  have  at  least  one 
place,  his  home,  where  his  influence  is  supreme. 

It  is  no  answer  to  the  criticisms  here  made  of 
this  novel  system  to  say  that  these  laws  are  only 
a  terror  to  the  wicked,  that  good  husbands  and 
good  fathers  have  nothing  to  fear  from  them. 
But  they  have.  The  effect  of  these  laws  is  to 
diminish  their  authority.  Applied  to  the  person 
of  the  wrong-doing  husband  or  father,  they  be- 
come precedents  showing  how  low  the  power  and 
the  influence  of  the  heads  of  all  families  have 
fallen.  Then,  when  the  unoffending  husband  or 
father  seeks  to  control  in  a  perfectly  proper  case 
the  affairs  of  his  household,  he  finds  that  his  hand 
is  paralyzed  by  these  laws.  Then  come  discord, 
discussion,  disorder,  which  may  ruin  his  life  and 
happiness,  together  with  that  of  his  whole  house. 


266          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

The  question  is  often  asked:  What  would  you 
do  in  the  case  of  children  who  are  in  the  care  of 
unworthy  parents?  The  drunken  father  and  the 
dissolute  mother  are  the  favorite  types  for  a  test 
case.  The  question  is  not  without  its  difficulties; 
but  it  can,  we  believe,  be  answered  in  a  different 
manner  from  the  methods  here  brought  under 
review  for  criticism. 

"Children  are  an  heritage  of  the  Lord,"  we  are 
told  in  the  Bible.  The  same  rule  laid  down  in 
connection  with  husband  and  wife  might  easily 
be  extended  to  their  offispring, — "What  God  hath 
joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder."  If 
it  had  not  been  in  accordance  with  the  divine  will 
that  those  parents  should  have  had  the  children, 
they  would  not  have  had  them.  If  it  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  divine  will  that  the  children  no 
longer  be  under  the  influence  or  control  of  their 
parents,  if  Earth  afford  no  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem, Heaven  may.  The  father  and  the  mother 
are  answerable  to  a  more  exalted  tribunal  than 
Earth  affords  for  what  they  do  to  their  children, 
— "Whosoever  shall  offend  one  of  these  little 
ones  that  believes  in  me,  it  is  better  for  him  that  a 
millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  he 
were  cast  into  the  sea."  The  father  and  mother  are 
as  much  immortal  spirits  as  their  children,  and 
how  shall  man  determine  what  were  the  objects, 
or  presume  to  interfere  with  the  plans,  of  the 
Creator  in  giving  to  those  parents  the  children 
which  were  born  to  them.  It  may  have  been  to 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  267 

lead  the  parents  back  into  the  paths  of  virtue.  The 
Bible  nowhere  subordinates  parents  to  children, 
and  we  are  violating  its  injunctions  when  we  do 
so. 

Believing  that  these  are  the  proper  views  to 
hold  of  the  relation  of  parent  and  child,  it  follows 
that  the  legal  rules  and  principles  which  should 
stand  as  established  for  all  cases,  should  be  in 
harmony  with  these  principles,  and  should  not  be 
broken  and  twisted  to  fit  the  particular  cases  of 
apparent  or  real  hardship  which  sometimes  arise 
under  them.  More  harm  would  be  done  society  by 
subverting  a  good  rule  than  by  suffering  a  certain 
amount  of  mischief  due  to  some  cases  of  hardship 
arising  under  it.  The  millennium  would  have  ar- 
rived if  some  did  not  always  have  to  suffer  for 
the  rest.  The  soldier  gives  up  his  life  on  the  field 
of  battle  that  his  country  may  be  protected.  So 
these  salutary  rules  of  proper  domestic  control 
and  discipline,  which  are  necessary  for  the  great 
body  of  society,  should  not  be  reversed,  and 
formulated  in  a  manner  which  covers  the  excep- 
tion but  injures  the  system.  The  conclusion  from 
this  would  be  that  even  the  unworthy  parents  have 
rights  which  the  State  should  recognize  and  pro- 
tect. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  of  abuse  of  fathers  for 
the  neglect  of  their  children,  but  this  may  very 
reasonably  be  considered  one  of  the  bad  effects  of 
the  very  system  now  criticised.  Just  in  propor- 
tion as  the  State  interferes,  just  in  that  same 


268  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

proportion  is  the  father  taught  that  it  is  not  his 
business,  but  the  State's,  to  take  care  of  the  chil- 
dren. It  is  logical  to  hold  either  that  it  is  our 
business,  or  it  not  our  business,  to  attend  to  any 
particular  thing.  If  it  be  the  business  of  some- 
body else,  then  we  leave  it,  and  go  our  way. 
Having  interfered,  and  thus  unsettled  the  minds 
of  people  as  to  whose  business  it  is,  the  State, 
finding  that  some  fathers  neglect  their  children, 
pass  these  severe  laws,  degrading  to  all  fathers, 
in  order  to  make  these  few  delinquents  attend  to 
their  duties,  and  does  this  in  a  way  which  also 
prejudices  the  fathers  in  regard  to  the  other 
parent,  lessening  his  authority  as  to  'his  wife  as 
well  as  to  the  children.  To  the  situation  thus 
produced  it  then  offers  as  a  remedy  the  hauling 
the  father  and  husband  into  court  and  the  flinging 
him  into  jail  for  not  discharging  duties  which, 
under  a  more  sensible  system,  he  might  very 
willingly  have  performed. 

The  same  effect  is  produced  as  between  the  hus- 
band and  wife  when  the  wife  asserts  that  her 
rights  are  superior  to  her  husband's  in  regard  to 
the  children. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  word  love  has 
hardly  been  mentioned  in  this  book, — the  love  of 
the  husband  for  his  wife,  and  from  the  wife  to 
the  husband,  the  love  of  the  father  to  his  child, 
and  the  child  to  its  father, — and  that  this  love 
exists,  and  may  be  relied  upon  to  smooth  over 
and  render  practicable  the  system  which  is  here 


FATHER  AND  CHILD  269 

set  forth  in  its  unadorned  and  severest  legal  form. 
The  reply  would  properly  be  made  to  this  criti- 
cism that  this  work  is  in  answer  to  a  political 
movement  involving  law,  not  sentiment.  There 
is  no  desire  nor  intention  to  diminish  the  love 
which  should  bind  together,  by  the  strongest  and 
tenderest  ties,  members  of  the  same  family.  The 
contention  here  maintained  is  that  this  very  senti- 
ment is  endangered  by  the  present  rules,  and  may 
be  ruined  forever  by  an  extension  of  them;  that 
love  does  not  grow  out  of  disorder;  that  a  sys- 
tem which  degrades  the  husband  and  the  father 
does  not  tend  to  make  him  more  beloved  by  his 
wife  and  children,  nor  does  it  increase  the  love  he 
would  bear  toward  them;  that  the  dignity  of 
human  life  is  diminished  by  this  system;  that  a 
married  woman  herself  becomes  a  more  import- 
ant and  dignified  person  when  she  is  the  wife  of 
a  man  whose  position  is  dignified  by  the  laws  of 
society  than  when  she  is  the  wife  of  a  person 
treated  by  them  as  an  object  of  distrust.  So  with 
the  children.  Without  a  head  treated  with  re- 
spect by  the  State,  and  by  the  members  of  it, 
the  family  itself  becomes  contemptible.  In  such 
a  household  love  will  not  flourish. 

We  believe  that  the  Creator  of  the  world  knew 
how  family  life  ought  to  be  conducted,  and  that 
peace,  happiness,  and  love  will  be  found  in  regu- 
lating these  matters  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
laid  down  in  the  Bible. 


Conclusion 


Conclusion 

CHAPTER  I 

Not  so  many  years  ago  we  were  introduced 
to  the  New  Woman.  The  character,  duties,  posi- 
tion, and  functions  of  woman  as  they  have  been 
construed,  accepted,  and  acted  upon  since  the  dawn 
of  history,  were  suddenly  found  by  her  to  have 
been  all  wrong.  Woman  was  now  to  be  regen- 
erated, to  be  given  her  proper  position  in  the 
economy  of  the  universe.  A  new  light  had 
dawned  upon  the  earth,  and  all  creation  was  to 
be  made  better  and  happier  by  this  so-called 
emancipation  and  elevation  of  women. 

A  score  or  so  of  years  have  passed  since  then, 
and  the  New  Woman  has  now  become,  we  might 
say,  a  middle-aged  woman.  We  know  her  bet- 
ter than  we  did  when  we  first  made  her  acquaint- 
ance. During  these  years  the  aims  and  ideals 
which  underlay  that  movement  have  been  made 
manifest  by  what  has  transpired  since  the  agita- 
tion began.  We  have  seen  men's  places  in  the 
business  world  taken  by  women;  divorces  multi- 
plied, and  still  increasing, — most  of  them  brought 
by  -women  against  their  husbands;  household 
duties  neglected;  the  care  and  the  training  of  the 

273 


274          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

children  slighted;  the  children  growing  up  unruly, 
ill-mannered,  disrespectful;  the  parents  largely 
subordinated  to  their  children;  prolonged  ab- 
sences of  wives  in  the  summer;  husbands  put  in 
jail  on  preposterous  grounds;  then  put  under  rules 
which  tend  to  destroy  utterly  their  influence  and 
their  authority  in  their  families;  disorder  and 
violence  unheard  of  before  in  the  home,  and  the 
family  hearth  often  stained  with  the  blood  of  the 
wretched  members  by  whom  and  for  whom  death 
was  preferred  to  the  domestic  anarchy  in  which 
they  were  living. 

But  these  things  were  not  enough.  Upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  men  already  staggering  under 
the  weight  of  Ossa,  Pelion  is  now  to  be  piled.  The 
New  Woman  comes  before  us  as  the  Suffragette. 
But  as  that  word  has  already  acquired  a  deserv- 
edly odious  signification  the  word  "Suffragist," 
or  "Equal  Rights,"  or  some  other  such  subter- 
fuge or  substitution  is  put  forward  in  place  of 
the  primary  word  to  describe  her. 

The  Suffragette,  then,  not  satisfied  with  being 
a  woman,  asks  or  demands  as  a  right  to  be  made 
a  man.  She  demands  the  political  power  of  a 
man.  Why?  Is  it  in  order  to  discharge  better 
her  duties  as  a  woman?  She  is  a  woman,  not  a 
man.  There  is  nothing  in  the  present  construc- 
tion of  society  which  hinders  her  from  being  the 
most  glorious  and  blessed,  the  most  illustrious, 
admired,  and  beloved  of  women.  She  was  cre- 
ated as  an  helpmeet  for  man,  not  as  another 


CONCLUSION  275 

kind  of  man;  and  no  one  thinks  any  the  less  of 
her  for  being  what  she  is,  so  long  as  she  does 
not  try  to  be  something  else.  It  is  impossible  to 
make  her  anything  different  from  what  she  was 
born.  But,  although  no  one  can  make  women  men, 
society  can  so  alter  the  relations  between  the 
sexes  as  to  ruin  their  harmony.  What  the  Suf- 
fragettes are  now  asking  men  to  do  threatens  to 
accomplish  this. 

Is  any  one  so  simple  as  to  believe  that  the 
Suffragette  is  demanding  the  right  to  vote  for  the 
benefit  of  the  men?  Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that 
the  movement  is  a  thoroughly  hostile  one  to  men? 
If  so,  why  do  men  seem  not  to  appreciate  the 
far-reaching  consequences  to  them?  Do  men  now 
get  too  much  satisfaction  from  their  relations 
with  women,  and  consequently  would  not  be  the 
losers  if  they  were  to  receive  less?  Is  it  not  ap- 
parent that  if  women  had  the  right  to  vote,  they 
would  claim  the  right  to  hold  office,  to  sit  in  the 
Legislature,  to  make  laws?  And  is  there  a  man 
so  stupid  as  to  believe  that  if  women, — who  are 
in  the  majority  in  the  eastern  part  of  this  country, 
— had  the  power  to  control  legislation  he  would 
long  have  a  right  left  on  earth?  From  what 
has  already  been  done  at  their  instigation  can  he 
imagine  that  he  would  be  benefited  by  what 
might  yet  be  done?  As  a  man,  now,  with  the 
record  of  the  past  few  years  before  you,  do  you 
believe  that  if  women  had  the  right  to  vote,  your 
wife,  with  her  head  full  of  political  ideas  or  am- 


276  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

bitions,  would  be  any  more  disposed  to  attend  to 
her  household  duties  than  she  is  now? 

These  duties  are  of  the  very  highest  import- 
ance, since  the  comfort,  happiness,  and  general 
well-being  of  the  family  are  largely  dependent 
upon  them.  Somebody  must  attend  to  them. 
Who  is  it  going  to  be?  Would  the  children  be 
any  better  brought  up?  They  need  an  endless 
amount  of  care  and  training.  Who  is  going  to 
give  it  to  them?  Would  you, — having  been 
stripped  of  all  political  power,  as  compared  with 
that  possessed  by  your  wife  and  your  daughter, — 
would  you  be  any  more  the  object  of  their  care 
and  attention  than  you  now  are?  Would  your 
life  be  any  happier  with  more  burdens  and  new 
responsibilities  thrown  upon  you,  accompanied 
with  less  care  and  attention?  Would  your  life 
be  happier  with  the  jail  staring  you  in  the  face 
if  you  broke  a  lot  of  new  laws, — all  aimed  at 
you, — enacted  by  women?  Or,  being  unmarried, 
would  you  prefer  that  your  sweetheart  should  go 
into  politics?  Do  you  think  it  would  make  her 
a  better  woman  or  a  better  wife  for  you? 

Such  blandishments  as  the  Suffragettes  now 
make  use  of  in  soliciting  the  aid  of  men  to  further 
their  schemes  are  on  a  par  with  the  caresses 
Delilah  bestowed  upon  her  lover,  to  induce  him 
to  tell  her  the  source  of  his  strength,  in  order 
that  she  might  betray  and  destroy  him.  The  Suf- 
fragette is  no  friend  of  mankind;  but  there  are 
many  of  her  sex  who  still  are.  For  these  we  have 


CONCLUSION  277 

the  love  and  the  admiration  which  naturally  arise 
in  the  heart  of  man  for  a  sweet  and  lovely  woman. 
Such  women  are  now  all  the  more  to  be  admired 
and  cherished  as  allies  who  decline  to  be  led  away 
from  their  rightful  allegiance  by  othei^-women 
who  have  raised  a  false  issue  between  their  sex 
and  ourselves,  to  whom  they  owe  much  higher 
duties  than  they  could  ever  owe  to  these  other 
women.  The  duties  we  are  here  discussing  grow 
out  of  the  family  relationships.  What  duties  do 
women,  as  such,  owe  to  other  women  whom  they 
do  not  even  know,  in  comparison  with  the  duties 
they  owe  to  their  husbands  and  their  children? 

Does  any  thoughtful  man  really  believe  that 
the  general  political  conditions  in  the  State  and 
country  would  be  improved  by  this  addition  to  the 
list  of  voters?  The  trouble  is  that  we  already 
have  too  many  voters,  not  too  few.  What  we 
need,  and  need  badly  enough,  is  a  better  quality  of 
voters,  not  a  greater  quantity.  It  has  been  largely 
due  to  the  disorder  which  has  been  brought  into 
public  affairs  by  the  presence  of  the  large  num- 
ber of  undesirable  voters  we  now  have  that  our 
institutions  and  the  administration  of  public  af- 
fairs have  been  so  severely  criticised.  Politics 
in  general  has  been  presented  as  hopelessly  bad. 
Both  parties  abuse  each  other.  This  everlasting 
criticism,  much  of  which  is  well  founded,  has  had 
the  bad  effect,  however,  of  weakening  the  gov- 
ernment. 

This  government,  however,  such  as  it  is,  is  a 


278  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

man's  government.  The  Suffragettes  take  ad- 
vantage of  this  criticism,  and  allege  that  if  they 
took  charge  everything  would  be  perfect;  bad  gov- 
ernment would  become  good  government,  and  so 
on.  But  it  is  not  good  government  which  they 
want.  It  is  political  power.  They  have  good 
government  in  England,  but  there  the  Suffragettes 
are  worse  than  they  are  with  us;  at  least,  worse 
than  they  have  been  so  far,  for  they  are  just  be- 
ginning with  us.  The  Suffragettes  therefore  pro- 
pose doubling  the  number  of  voters  as  a  remedy 
for  all  the  ills  with  which  we  are  afflicted.  Con- 
fusion would  then,  of  course,  be  worse  con- 
founded. The  elements  of  disorder  understand 
perfectly  the  opportunity  which  would  be  thus 
presented,  and  so  all  these  elements  strongly  ad- 
vocate female  suffrage.  They  do  it  because  they 
know  that  such  an  addition  would  give  a  greater 
number  of  votes  to  the  women  of  the  classes  they 
are  in  sympathy  with,  than  to  the  upper,  con- 
servative, class.  The  Suffragettes  belong,  as  a 
rule,  to  the  upper  class,  their  social  position  alone 
giving  them  the  attention  and  consideration  they 
receive.  No  one  would  have  listened  to  the 
proposition  had  it  emanated  from  the  house-serv- 
ants. But  these  same  house-servants  would  come 
in  as  voters  under  it,  and  so,  many  of  the  lower 
classes  line  themselves  up  with  the  aristocratic 
Mistress  Soandso  and  the  well-known  Miss  Some- 
bodyelse  in  the  furtherance  of  a  scheme  which, 
in  its  ultimate  effect,  would  pull  down  the  whole 


CONCLUSION  279 

social  and  political  structure  of  the  State.  We 
see  here  the  blind  leading  the  blind.  The  orig- 
inal Suffragettes  might  have  their  eyes  opened 
when  they  found  the  State  finally  in  the  hands 
of  the  proletariat  forces;  and  the  men  belonging 
to  the  political  parties  which  preach  disorder, 
would  have  theirs  opened  when  they  found  them- 
selves in  jail  under  laws  enacted  by  their  wives. 

No  amount  of  argument  on  the  part  of  the 
Suffragettes  will  alter  these  facts, — that  society  as 
a  whole  is  made  up  of  family  groups;  that  these 
groups  are  composed  of  father  and  mother  and 
children,  and  that  the  natural  head  of  such  a 
group  is  the  father.  The  customs  and  the  laws 
of  society  should  be  in  harmony  with  these  facts. 
Nothing  but  disorder  can  possibly  result  from 
legislating  in  contravention  to  them. 

A  woman  can  never  be  properly  the  head  of 
the  house.  If  she  wrest  the  authority  from  the 
husband  it  is  but  an  act  of  violence,  and  she  be- 
comes a  mere  usurper.  Her  husband  and  chil- 
dren can  but  regard  her  as  such.  The  proper  and 
legitimate  sovereign  is  her  husband.  Every  right- 
thinking  person  will  know  this,  whether  she  does 
or  not.  Her  husbartd  may  be  deposed  but  he 
has,  nevertheless,  by  divine  right  the  title  to  the 
family  crown. 

Men  as  individuals  need  the  aid  of  some  con- 
certed action  of  men  in  the  campaign  which  is 
now  going  on.  The  Suffragettes  are  a  highly 
organized  militant  band.  The  men  are  unorgan- 


28o  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ized,  so  far  as  opposition  to  this  movement  is  con- 
cerned. One  by  one,  like  sentries  surrounding  a 
sleeping  army,  men  are  picked  off  in  the  dark. 
In  the  seclusion  of  home,  at  the  fireside,  at  table, 
and  in  bed,  a  lone  and  unsupported  man  may  be 
conquered  by  a  fury  calling  herself  a  Suffragette. 
He  sometimes,  poor  soul !  surrenders  at  discretion 
— anything  for  peace  in  the  family.  The  standards 
of  society  have  been  so  shaken,  the  attitude  of  the 
stage,  of  the  moving-pictures,  of  novels,  of  the 
newspapers,  of  the  magazines,  of  thoughtless  men 
who  make  a  joke  of  the  way  wives  rule,  unnerve 
the  poor  creature.  In  a  moment  of  weakness,  with 
no  definite  guide  to  go  by,  ignorant  of  what  have 
been  and  still  should  be  his  rights,  with  no  or- 
ganization supporting  him,  with  no  carefully 
thought-out  arguments  'on  hand  to  oppose  to  the 
fervent  tirades  of  his  wife,  with  only  his  own  in- 
nate opposition  to  it  in  answer  to  her  campaign 
literature,  he  is  led, — a  veritable  sheep  fit  for  the 
slaughter, — openly  to  declare  himself  in  favor 
of  woman's  suffrage. 

Can  a  more  deplorable  spectacle  of  human 
weakness  be  found?  He  should  have  the  laws, 
the  immutable  laws  of  the  State,  on  his  side  in 
this  difficult  and  abnormal  kind  of  contest.  In- 
deed, there  should  be  no  contest.  The  fixed  rules 
of  society  should  define  the  position  of  both,  and 
do  so  with  justice  to  both,  in  accordance  with 
the  fundamental  laws  of  our  own  natures. 

Under  the  statutes  already  enacted  at  the  in- 


CONCLUSION  281 

stigation  of  these  agitators,  or  of  those  in  sym- 
pathy with  their  views,  husbands  and  fathers  can 
now  be  flung  into  prison  or  sent  in  chains  to 
work  the  public  roads.  These  women  in  demand- 
ing the  right  to  vote  have  not  half  declared  what 
is  in  their  minds.  Voting  alone  is  not  enough. 
They  want  to  hold  office,  enact  and  administer 
law,  and  wield  the  general  powers  of  govern- 
ment. Severely  as  husbands  and  fathers  are  now 
dealt  with,  they  have  by  no  means  reached  the 
limit  of  the  afflictions  which  could  be  put  upon 
them.  Why  could  not  these  newly  defined  of- 
fenses, and  all  sorts  of  other  acts  which  might  be 
legally  declared  to  be  offenses,  be  much  more 
severely  punished?  The  penitentiary  has  already 
been  suggested  as  suitable;  why  not  the  electric 
chair?  What  would  be  the  chance  for  a  fair  trial 
on  its  merits  of  a  case  brought  against  a  hus- 
band or  father  before  a  virago  Judge  with  a 
termagant  Commonwealth's  Attorney  as  prose- 
cutor, and  with  a  lot  of  Suffragettes  in  the  jury- 
box?  The  possibility  of  all  this  is  involved  in 
"Votes  for  Women."  The  women  you  would  have 
to  deal  with  would  not  be  the  ones  you  admire 
and  love.  No;  these  would  be  at  their  homes 
attending  to  their  womanly  duties.  You  would 
have  to  deal  with  the  leaders  of  the  suffragette 
movement;  or,  worse  still,  with  other  even  more 
violent  and  dangerous  characters  who  may  have 
supplanted  them  in  this  movement  to  turn  the 
world  upside  down. 


282  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

To  believe  that  the  demands  of  the  Suffragettes 
are  right  is  to  believe  that  the  race  from  which 
we  are  sprung  has  been  wrong  throughout  its 
history.  There  is  nothing  new  about  women. 
There  is  nothing  new  about  children.  These  two 
classes  have  existed  for  thousands  of  years.  Up 
to  a  few  days  ago  the  world  was  in  peace  and 
quietness  on  this  subject.  No  question  was  raised 
suggesting  that  our  race  had  not  properly  inter- 
preted the  mutual  rights  and  obligations  flowing 
from  the  relations  existing  in  the  family  circle. 
Is  it  not,  therefore,  possible  that  this  whole  dis- 
turbance is  a  made-up  affair;  that  we  are  hav- 
ing a  bad  dream,  or  rather  a  dreadful  nightmare, 
over  nothing,  and  that  if  we  would  awake,  re- 
cover full  consciousness,  look  facts  again  in  the 
face,  and  exercise  our  sober  reason,  we  would 
see  that  the  only  sensible  thing  to  do  is  to  go 
back  to  where  we  were  before  the  disturbance 
began?  Upon  the  return  of  a  clear  sky  we  will 
see  that  the  ship,  driven  by  a  sudden  squall,  has 
been  taken  out  of  its  course,  and  is  heading  for 
breakers  which  threaten  destruction. 

We  are  evidently  passing  through  a  craze. 
France  went  through  the  Mississippi  Bubble  craze, 
the  Netherlands  went  through  the  Tulip  craze, 
England  jyent  through  the  South  Sea  Bubble  craze, 
and  the  United  States  of  America  is  ahead  of 
the  world  in  its  extravagances  in  connection  with 
the  Women  and  Children  craze.  That  this  craze 
exists  beyond  our  borders,  and  affects  other  coun- 


CONCLUSION  283 

tries,  does  not  prevent  it  from  being  a  craze. 
The  whole  of  Christendom  has  before  this  been 
affected  by  crazes;  for  example,  the  Crusades;  the 
belief  in  the  Northwest  Passage,  and  Prester 
John. 

The  statutes  which  have  been  passed  on  this 
subject  deserve  to  be  put  in  a  Museum  of  Legal 
Curiosities,  and  to  be  given  a  conspicuous  posi- 
tion in  the  section  devoted  to  Legislative  Attempts 
to  Subordinate  Men  to  Women  and  Children. 


CHAPTER  II 

In  the  past  women  were  accorded  privileges. 
These  privileges  were  many  and  valuable.  Un- 
fortunately for  mankind,  agitators  set  to  work 
to  assert  the  so-called  rights  of  women.  As  is 
often  the  case  when  this  kind  of  attack  is  made, 
there  is  no  well-organized  resistance,  and  the 
movement  gains  a  headway  that  it  does  not  de- 
serve. These  rights, — or  more  properly  speak- 
ing, these  unreasonable  demands, — were  in  many 
cases  accorded,  but  there  has  been  manifested  no 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  women  voluntarily 
to  surrender  any  of  their  former  privileges.  They 
are,  therefore,  at  present  in  the  position  of  de- 
manding more  than  they  are  entitled  to, — that  is, 
both  rights  and  privileges.  They  are  not  en- 
titled to  both,  and  the  result  of  the  contest  is 
gradually  the  working  out  of  a  substitution  of 
one  of  these  things  for  the  other.  The  more 
they  demand  rights,  the  more  they  will  lose  priv- 
ileges. There  is  no  real  gain  for  women  in  this, 
and,  worse  than  that,  there  is  no  gain  on  the 
part  of  the  world  by  this  system.  We  are  there- 
fore opposed  to  all  these  so-called  rights,  while 
favoring  all  of  the  former  privileges,  surrounded 
as  they  were  by  the  sweet  odors  of  courtesy, 
chivalry,  romance,  poetry,  and  love. 

284 


CONCLUSION  285 

What  do  women  gain  in  demanding  the  right 
to  vote,  and  actually  acquiring  the  right  to 
stand  up  in  a  street  car;  in  claiming  the  right  to 
smoke,  and  thereby  losing  the  right  to  have  men 
take  off  their  hats  in  a  woman's  presence;  in 
claiming  an  equality  with  men  in  all  matters,  and 
acquiring  thereby  the  obligation  to  make  a  living 
for  themselves,  and  so  on?  So  long  as  they  be 
women,  they  are  entitled  to  women's  privileges, 
but  if,  not  satisfied  with  these,  they  demand  men's 
rights,  it  must  inevitably  be  at  the  cost  of  their 
former  privileges. 

For  women  we  have  respect,  admiration,  and 
love.  They  compose  half  of  the  race,  and  nat- 
urally possess  its  softer  and  more  amiable  char- 
acteristics. We  would  preserve  all  the  sweetness 
which  belongs  to  womanhood,  as  it  has  existed 
with  us  through  ages  past,  and  the  men  should 
not  permit  a  policy  to  expand,  nor  continue  to 
exist,  which  tends  to  make  second-class  men  out 
of  what  may  be  glorious  women. 

It  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  successfully  denied 
that  women  from  the  North  and  the  West  find 
in  the  South  a  delicate  attention  and  regard  paid 
them  which  exceeds  that  which  generally  pre- 
vails in  their  own  sections  of  the  country.  What 
is  the  cause  of  this?  It  is  because  the  former  rules 
regulating  the  relations  of  men  and  women,  and 
husbands  and  wives,  have  remained  longer  un- 
changed in  the  South  than  in  any  other  part  of 
the  country.  The  delicious  aroma  of  courtesy  and 


286          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  privilege  still  lingers  in  our  midst.  We  desire  to 
preserve  and  strengthen  this.  It  cannot  long  sur- 
vive the  line  of  modern  legislation  which  has  been 
reviewed  in  these  pages.  These  statutes  are 
enough  to  chill  it  and,  finally,  to  blast  it  forever. 
They  do  not  represent  Virginia  law,  custom, 
thought,  nor  usage.  They  are  foreign  importa- 
tions, utterly  at  variance  with  our  institutions ;  and 
it  is  firmly  believed  that  they  will  work  untold  evil 
to  both  men  and  women,  and  to  the  social  and 
domestic  life  of  our  State.  What  we  ought  to  do 
is  to  proceed  to  repeal  these  laws  one  after  the 
other,  and  then  firmly  refuse  to  open  the  subject 
again. 


CHAPTER  III 

A  fair  sample  of  the  suffragette  argument  is  pre- 
sented in  a  speech  made  by  one  of  their  orators  in 
Norfolk  on  December  6,  1911.  It  was  reported 
in  the  Landmark  in  part  as  follows: 

"The  mixed  element  in  our  politics  is  too 
strong.  We  should  strengthen  it  with  good  ma- 
terial, he  stated.  In  conclusion,  he  said:  'The 
vote  is  a  responsibility  the  women  should  shoulder 
whether  they  want  it  or  not.  It  is  not  a  question 
of  their  wishes  in  the  matter,  but  a  question  of 
the  debt  they  owe  to  their  nation.  The  men  have 
made  a  mess  of  it,  and  now  it  is  up  to  the  women 
to  clean  it  up.  If  we  can  get  the  women  to  take 
their  share  of  the  burden,  this  condition  will  be 
changed  and  our  politics  will  be  purified.' ' 

What  an  argument  to  make  to  the  men  of  a 
State  which,  in  its  short  history,  has  presented  to 
an  admiring  world  as  brilliant  a  galaxy  of  states- 
men, jurists  and  soldiers  as  any  country  has  ever 
produced  and  which  is  probably  equalled  only  by 
Attica !  What  a  speech  to  make  to  Virginians, 
who  are  a  branch  of  the  great  Anglo-Saxon  race 
which  for  a  thousand  years  has  'held  a  command- 
ing place  among  the  races  of  the  earth,  and  which 
to-day  leads  the  thought  and  the  action  of  the 
world!  From  small  beginnings,  and  in  a  com- 

287 


288  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

paratively  short  time,  it  has  surpassed  in  its 
achievements  the  Slav,  the  Oriental,  and  the 
Latin.  Its  beneficent  rule  is  exercised  in  nearly 
every  part  of  the  known  world.  It  rules  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  the  south  of 
Africa,  and  Egypt;  it  rules  Australia,  and  mil- 
lions of  Asiatics  in  India ;  it  rules  nearly  the  whole 
continent  of  North  America,  and  its  power  is  felt 
in  the  court  of  every  nation  upon  the  earth. 

Yet  we  are  urged  to  break  with  the  traditions 
and  the  experience  of  the  past  by  which  the  power 
of  this  race  has  been  established  upon  the  earth, 
because  "the  men  have  made  a  mess  of  it,"  and 
adopt,  instead  of  the  rules  by  which  the  great 
body  of  our  race  has  always  been  governed,  the 
novel  theories  of  a  few,  raw,  Western  American 
States,  which  have  yet  to  show  to  the  world  that 
their  theories, — in  contradiction  to  the  methods 
which  have  been  followed  by  the  whole  human 
race  of  every  clime  and  kindred  throughout  the 
entire  historic  period, — have  in  them  a  single 
spark  of  merit. 

It  is  a  serious  question  whether  in  the  rivalry 
for  ascendency  and  power  among  the  great  races 
of  the  earth  upon  the  broad  stage  of  the  world 
itself  we  will  be  able  to  maintain  ourselves  when 
brought  into  a  life  and  death  struggle  with  the 
forces  of  other  nations  which  have  adhered  to 
the  domestic  construction  which  has  prevailed 
with  them  since  the  dawn  of  their  history.  We 
are  rapidly  ruining  the  home.  If  we  complete  its 


CONCLUSION  289 

ruin,  whence  will  come  the  men  on  whom  we  are 
to  rely  for  maintaining  the  ascendency  of  the 
race?  We  are  shaking  the  foundation  stones  of 
society.  If  this  be  continued,  the  whole  edifice 
may  finally  collapse. 

One  of  the  favorite  arguments  of  the  Suffra- 
gettes is,  "It's  coming."  As  "It," — that  is  this 
disaster, — can  only  come  by  the  men  permitting  it, 
all  that  is  necessary  to  obliterate  utterly  that 
argument  is  for  the  men  to  say  "No."  Consider- 
ing the  seriousness  of  the  issues  involved,  even 
the  worst  henpecked  husbands  should  rise  to  the 
height  of  saying  "No"  in  this  case.  The  "No" 
should  be  so  emphatic  that  it  would  admit  of  no 
concession  nor  compromise  whatever.  Even  the 
tip  of  the  nose  of  the  camel  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  be  put  under  the  tent  which  is  fastened 
down  around  the  boundary  line  of  the  State  of 
Virginia. 

It  is  an  open  question  what  use  the  women 
would  make  of  this  right,  even  if  it  were  given 
them.  Sir  Walter  Scott,  while  paying  them  the 
compliment  of  saying  that  when  pain  and  anguish 
wring  the  brow  they  (the  women)  are  minister- 
ing angels,  further  said  that  in  their  hours  of 
ease  they  were  "uncertain,  coy,  and  hard  to  please, 
and  variable  as  the  shade  by  the  light  quivering 
aspen  made."  With  all  the  zeal  of  a  new  cause, 
the  Suffragettes  are  now  clamoring  for  the  right 
to  vote.  After  having  it  given  to  them,  who 
would  be  much  surprised  to  hear  that  they  did 


29o          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

not  really  want  it,  that  they  just  wanted  to  see 
if  they  could  get  it?  But  the  mischief  would 
have  been  done.  The  Suffragettes,  who  are  now 
ladies,  would  be  replaced  by  others.  The  flood- 
gates would  be  opened,  and  there  would  be  thous- 
ands who  would  be  only  too  glad  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  it. 

There  is  no  good  reason  why  all  the  persons 
in  a  community  should  be  called  upon  to  perform 
all  kinds  of  different  functions.  There  are  some 
other  things  as  important  as  politics,  but  no  one 
thinks  the  world  would  be  better  by  having  every- 
body in  the  Army,  or  in  the  Navy,  or  in  the 
Church,  or  all  doctors,  or  lawyers,  or  carpenters, 
or  bricklayers.  It  is  the  experience  of  the  world 
that  things  are  better  done  when  the  doer  does 
not  have  his  time  and  attention  distracted  by  too 
many  different  things.  A  Jack  of  all  trades  is 
good  at  none.  From  time  immemorial  the  politi- 
cal functions  of  the  State  have  been  within  the 
province  of  man's  activities,  duties,  and  responsi- 
bilities, and  the  history  of  the  world  shows  that 
it  is  difficult  enough  to  keep  going  smoothly  that 
vast  complicated  machine  called  government.  In- 
experienced, raw  hands  are  not  needed  here, 
especially  when  to  bring  them  in  would  withdraw 
them  from  other  fields  peculiarly  their  own, 
which,  if  not  equally  conspicuous,  are  equally  im- 
portant for  the  well-being  of  mankind. 

During  a  Suffragette  meeting  recently  held  in 
a  Virginia  city  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  move- 


CONCLUSION  291 

ment    gave    the    following    as    the    reasons    why 
women  should  'have  the  right  to  vote : 

i 
"That  she  may  feed  her  family  properly  and 

secure  pure  food  laws. 

"That  she  may  clothe  her  family  properly. 

"That  she  may  house  her  family  under  proper 
health  conditions. 

"That  she  may  procure  a  copious  and  cleanly 
water  supply. 

"That  she  may  see  to  clean  streets  and  proper 
disposal  of  garbage. 

"That  she  may  get  the  best  possible  education 
for  her  children. 

"That  she  may  safeguard  children's  morals  in 
the  streets,  at  moving-picture  shows,  in  schools, 
and  in  all  public  institutions. 

"That  she  may  gain  decent  and  honorable 
working  conditions  for  women,  men,  and  chil- 
dren. 

"That  she  may  abolish  the  white  slave  trade. 

"That  she  may  keep  open  the  juvenile  courts. 

"That  she  may  mitigate  the  legal  discrimina- 
tion against  women,  and  give  women  equal  guar- 
dianship over  their  children. 

"That  she  may  be  able  to  carry  out  ably  and 
efficiently  those  duties  which  naturally  and  his- 
torically belong  to  women  as  the  great  caretakers 
of  the  world." 

The  first  seven  of  these  high-sounding  reasons 
might  be  more  briefly  stated  as  simply  proposing 


292  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

that  wives  should  supersede  their  husbands  in  at- 
tending to  the  vital  affairs  of  life.  The  next  two 
should  commend  themselves  as  much  to  men  as 
to  women;  and  there  is  no  reason  why  women 
should  vote  to  accomplish  them.  The  last  two 
propositions  have  in  view  the  still  further  reduc- 
tion of  the  powers  and  rights  of  husbands  and 
fathers.  The  phrase  "mitigate  the  legal  discrim- 
ination against  women"  might  be  paraphrased  as 
taking  away  every  particular  right  which  a  man 
has.  "Giving  women  equal  guardianship  over 
her  children"  means  taking  away  the  remaining 
vestige  of  headship  in  the  family  now  possessed 
by  the  father. 

On  the  whole,  these  reasons  are  no  reasons  at 
all,  but  merely  the  expression  of  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  women  to  take  the  places  which  now  be- 
long to  men. 

Another  favorite  argument  put  forth  by  the 
Suffragettes  is  that  owning  property  they  are 
taxed  without  being  represented,  and  they  use 
the  revolutionary  slogan:  "Taxation  Without- 
Representation  is  Tyranny."  This  argument 
would  do  very  well  but  for  the  fact  that  it  is 
wholly  destitute  of  merit.  The  Colonies  were 
taxed  as  such,  without  representation  in  the 
British  Parliament.  One  rule  applied  to  the  Col- 
onies, and  another  rule  to  England.  But  here 
no  woman  is  taxed  as  a  woman  by  a  rule  differ- 
ent from  that  which  applies  to  men.  No  regard 
whatever  is  paid  as  to  who  owns  the  property, 


CONCLUSION  293 

but  all  property  is  taxed  at  rates  which  apply  to 
men  and  women  alike,  the  women  faring  as  well 
as  the  men,  and  being  fully  represented  by  their 
fathers,  brothers,  husbands,  sons,  grandsons, 
uncles,  nephews  and  cousins,  who  enact  the  laws 
which  apply  equally  to  all. 

We  should  even  remain  unmoved  by  the  sight 
of  maps  showing  in  angelic  whiteness  those 
States  which  have  yielded  to  women's  demands, 
while  other  States,  which  still  adhere  to  common 
sense,  are  depicted  in  the  darkest  black  that  the 
printer's  art  can  furnish.  We  should  oppose  to 
the  claims  of  mother  and  child  the  superior  claims 
of  father  and  child;  to  the  demands  of  wives 
the  equally  just  demands  of  husbands;  to  the 
rights  of  women  the  equally  sacred  rights  of  men. 

"Shall  we,  the  women,"  argued  one  of  the 
leaders  of  this  movement,  at  a  meeting  of  the 
National  American  Woman's  Suffrage  Associa- 
tion, held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  on  No- 
vember 24,  1912,  "leave  the  laws  solely  in  the 
hands  of  the  men  who,  after  the  day's  work, 
come  home  tired  and  unfit  to  consider  the  serious- 
ness of  life?" 

That  question,  asked  in  all  seriousness,  accord- 
ing to  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  proceedings 
of  that  august  assemblage,  deserves  an  answer; 
but  the  more  one  considers  the  question,  the  more 
he  will  see  that  it  answers  itself.  Whether  the 
question  displays  more  of  ignorance,  pride,  or 
prejudice,  it  would  be  much  more  difficult  to  de- 


294  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

cide.  The  ignorance  displayed,  if  real,  is  appal- 
ling. Men  do  not,  and  never  have,  passed  laws 
privately  in  their  homes  at  night  after  the  fatigue 
of  the  work  of  the  day.  Laws,  in  each  State,  are 
passed  by  representatives  duly  chosen  by  the 
people,  who  are  paid  to  leave  their  ordinary  oc- 
cupations in  order  to  go  to  the  capitol,  where, 
in  a  lawful  assembly,  held  at  the  most  conven- 
ient hours  of  the  day  or  night,  and  with  nothing 
else  on  their  hands  to  attend  to,  after  due  delib- 
eration they  adopt  such  rules  as  they  may  think 
best  for  the  public  welfare.  The  laws  thus  passed 
in  one  branch  of  the  Legislature  are  reviewed  by 
the  other,  and,  if  adopted  by  both,  still  need  the 
approval  of  the  governor  before  they  can  be  put 
into  force.  Everybody  in  this  country,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  learned  women  at  that 
convention,  who  propose  to  teach  the  world  how 
its  affairs  should  be  conducted,  knows  all  this, 
which  is  the  mere  A.  B.  C.  of  our  governmental 
construction;  yet  one  of  their  leaders  asks  such  a 
question  as  that. 

The  pride  displayed  in  the  question  is  equal 
to  the  ignorance;  and  there  is  no  room  to  doubt 
the  genuineness  of  the  feeling.  The  tired  men 
are  "unfit  to  consider  the  seriousness  of  life." 
It  is  therefore  only  their  wives  or  other  female 
members  of  their  families  who  are  worthy  and 
competent  to  discharge  such  lofty  functions. 

The  prejudice  displayed  is  equal  to  the  igno- 
rance and  the  pride.  The  men  "after  the  day's 


CONCLUSION  295 

work  come  home  tired,"  and  so  are  unfit  to  rule 
the  State.  What  made  these  men  so  tired  ex- 
cept the  labor  they  underwent  for  the  support  of 
their  families?  Having  labored  all  day  for  the 
wife  and  the  children  at  home,  the  sympathy  and 
the  reward  awaiting  the  husband  and  father  when 
he  returns  in  the  evening  to  his  fireside  is  the 
judgment  of  his  wife  that,  being  fatigued,  he  is 
"unfit  to  consider  the  seriousness  of  life." 

The  whole  system  being  worked  out  by  these 
Suffragettes  is  admirable,  and  most  beautiful  to 
contemplate.  The  husband  must  support  his  fam- 
ily. If  he  does  not  do  so,  he  is  to  be  put  in  jail 
for  non-support.  Being  thus  forced  to  work,  he 
becomes  tired.  Being  tired,  he  is  unfit  to  con- 
sider the  seriousness  of  life,  >and  so  is  to  be 
dethroned  and  the  reins  of  government  are  to 
be  taken  from  him,  and  transferred  to  his  wife. 
We  guarantee  that  this  programme,  fully  worked 
out,  will  effectually  cure  him  of  any  further  or 
latent  inability  he  may  have  been  guilty  of  in  con- 
sidering the  seriousness  of  life ! 

Let  men  once  open  wide  this  door  to  the  evils 
which  can  come  upon  them,  and  they  may  never 
be  able  to  shut  it.  They  should  look  with  dis- 
trust upon  other  men,  who,  having  political  as- 
pirations, and  noting  the  indifference  with  which 
so  many  men  regard  this  movement  and  the  zeal 
of  its  clamorous  exponents,  take  sides  with  what 
they  think  may  be  a  rising  power.  They  should 
also  look  with  distrust  upon  political  organiza- 


296          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

tions  that,  lacking  enough  of  merit  to  commend 
them  to  the  general  public,  are  forced  to  call  in  the 
aid  of  anybody  and  everybody  to  strengthen  the 
particular,  but  narrow,  basis  on  which  they  are 
founded.  No  well-informed  man,  free  to  exercise 
his  judgment,  and  having  no  axe  to  grind,  is  in 
favor  of  a  movement  which  is  clearly  hostile  to 
him.  When  a  man  comes  out  and  announces  that 
he  is  in  favor  of  this  movement,  it  is  not  Woman 
Suffrage  that  he  needs,  it  is  help. 

In  an  article  which  appeared  in  the  Virginian- 
Pilot  of  Norfolk,  on  December  22,  1912,  entitled 
"Why  Women  Are  Not  Marrying,"  after  saying 
that  many  did  not  do  so  from  choice,  the  follow- 
ing edifying  statement  of  what  has  been  accom- 
plished by  the  Woman's  Movement  is  given  us  by 
the  writer,  a  woman: 

"Apart  from  their  ability  to  stand  alone  and 
make  their  own  acknowledged  positions  in  the 
professional,  business,  and  social  world,  there  is 
another  reason  and  the  most  significant  of  all 
reasons  why  modern  women  of  education,  train- 
ing, and  culture  are  not  eager  to  marry.  It  is 
because  the  men  are  not  modern,  because  the  men 
are  out  of  date.  They  have,  in  truth,  been  asleep 
for  two  or  three  generations,  and  whilst  they  have 
been  resting  placidly  in  their  grooves,  hedged  in 
by  their  traditions  and  prejudices,  their  stereo- 
typed views  and  worn-out  codes,  lo !  things  have 
been  happening  of  which  they  have  been  entirely 
unaware. 


CONCLUSION  297 

"The  women  have  stolen  a  march  on  them  in 
initiative,  executive,  alertness,  dash,  courage,  en- 
thusiasm, perception,  vision.  And,  owing  to  this 
prolonged  slumber,  the  men  have  been  deprived 
of  the  advantage  of  following  the  phases  of  this 
change  in  women,  observation  of  which  would 
have  helped  them  to  readjust  themselves  gradu- 
ally, unconsciously  almost,  without  any  serious  dis- 
turbance to  themselves.  As  it  is,  they  awake  sud- 
denly expecting  to  find  the  same  old  relationships 
of  mastery  and  subjection,  the  same  old  separate 
standards  of  conduct,  and  the  same  old  values  and 
currencies,  and  are  confronted  instead  with  the 
astounding  and  annoying  fact  that  women  have  re- 
belled against  the  old  order  and  have  developed 
minds,  wishes,  intentions,  aims,  ideals,  and  opin- 
ions of  their  own,  together  with  a  rigid  determina- 
tion to  take  their  place  in  the  world  on  equal 
terms  with  men. 

"Other  surprises,  too,  await  them.  They  find 
that  they  have  lost  some  of  the  glamour  that 
was  once  theirs,  some  of  the  hero-worship,  some 
of  the  unquestioning  belief  in  their  innate  su- 
periority, ever  accepted  as  an  unalterable  law  of 
nature. 

"Doubts  appear  to  have  arisen  about  their 
strength  of  character,  formerly  always  taken  for 
granted.  They  are  conscious  of  uncomfortable 
criticism  and  analysis  where  in  the  past  there  was 
always  dumb  acceptance  and  endorsement.  And 
they  look  in  vain  for  those  propitiatory  offerings 


298  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

hitherto  unfailingly  brought  to  their  shrine  by  sub- 
servient women-folk,  both  young  and  old. 

"Of  course,  they  were  furious  at  the  change. 
They  would  not  be  worth  anything  if  they  did  not 
show  that  amount  of  spirit,  and  certainly  women 
have  not  the  right  to  be  angry  and  bitter  with 
them  since  they  themselves  are  to  blame  for  hav- 
ing accepted  for  so  long  the  position  of  servility 
and  submission,  and,  moreover,  inculcated  the 
doctrine  in  the  hearts  of  their  daughters,  genera- 
tion after  generation.  In  asking  justice  for  them- 
selves they  would,  indeed,  be  unfair  if  they  for- 
got to  concede  it  to  them. 

"But  when  the  men  have  calmed  down  they 
will  see  the  necessity  of  readjusting  themselves  to 
altered  conditions,  for  it  is  unthinkable  that  they 
will  be  content  to  remain  cut  off  from  the  love 
and  companionship  of  bright  and  gallant  women 
who,  however  attracted  by  them  personally,  are 
resolutely  set  against  choosing  husbands  who  are 
out  of  tune  in  the  harmony  of  their  progress  and 
out  of  perspective  in  the  changing  picture  of  life." 

Although  the  article  is  under  the  title  "Why 
Women  Are  not  Marrying,"  it  concludes  thus  with 
the  oft-heard  feminine  advice  and  urging  of  men 
to  marry: 

"Let  us  hope  that  the  men  will  bring  all  their 
inherent  splendid  qualities  of  nature  and  character 
up  to  date  without  delay  and  tempt  once  more  into 
the  paths  of  marriage  that  ever-increasing  class  of 
able  and  fine-hearted  women,  whose  power  of  pas- 


CONCLUSION  299 

sionate  loving  and  tender  cherishing  is  none  the 
less  real  because  their  outlook  has  been  widened 
by  knowledge  and  experience." 

This,  then,  is  the  reward  men  get  for  the  con- 
cessions they  have  granted  to  the  women, — to  be 
considered  out  of  date,  and  all  wrong  generally. 
This  presentation  of  their  view  of  the  case  is 
highly  effective,  and  affords  good  argument  why 
men  should  not  further  pursue  the  course  they 
have  pursued  in  dealing  with  this  matter.  The 
more  the  women  talk,  show  their  hand,  and  de- 
clare what  is  in  their  hearts  and  minds  about 
this  matter,  the  more  apparent  it  becomes  that 
the  sooner  the  men  put  a  stop  to  the  movement 
the  better. 

Marriage  is  an  institution  not  established 
merely  to  sanctify  the  union  of  persons  con- 
sumed by  la  grande  passion,  such  as  Romeo  and 
Juliet,  but  to  authorize  and  regulate,  in  a  wise 
and  reasonable  manner,  relations  which  should 
naturally  and  properly  exist  between  all  men  and 
women,  the  founders  of  family  groups.  The 
laws  on  this  subject  should  be  such  that  the  re- 
lation between  the  consorts  after  they  enter  mar- 
riage should  conduce  to  their  mutual  advantage, 
not  only  for  the  sake  of  the  individuals  who 
compose  the  married  couples  but  for  the  sake  of 
society.  These  couples  should  present  a  picture 
of  harmonious  and  satisfactory  existence,  so  that 
the  institution  will  be  kept  alive  by  others  who 
will  seek  for  themselves  the  advantages  which  they 


300          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

would  have  good  reason  to  believe  the  relation 
would  naturally  bring  to  them, — to  the  husband 
the  companionship,  comfort,  and  pleasure  he  may 
experience  in  his  wife's  society;  to  the  wife,  the 
companionship,  care,  and  protection  she  should 
receive  from  her  husband,  who  should  shield  and 
protect  her  from  the  outside  world. 

How  long  does  any  reasonable  person  believe 
that  a  system  such  as  we  are  rapidly  drifting  into 
can  survive?  Wives  are  represented  as  objects 
of  terror  to  their  husbands,  and  are  made  the 
threadbare  subject  of  jokes  on  the  stage,  in  the 
papers,  and  in  the  various  other  ways  by  which 
the  public  receives  its  strongest  impressions. 
These  jests  might  have  seemed  funny  at  first, 
before  the  feminist  idea  had  attained  its  present 
dimensions;  but  they  are  no  longer  so;  they  are 
ghastly.  They  are  doing  all  they  can  utterly  to 
ruin  in  the  mind  of  every  woman  her  proper  duty 
to  her  husband,  and  to  foster  in  the  mind  of  every 
man  the  idea,  "No  Wedding  Bells  for  Me." 

What  can  the  end  be  of  such  a  system?  The 
institutions,  customs,  laws,  habits,  the  very  men 
and  women  of  any  country,  can  be  utterly  de- 
moralized and  ruined,  if  enough  people  are  bent 
upon  the  accomplishment  of  such  ends.  We  have 
already  gone  too  far.  It  is  high  time  for  the 
men  of  the  various  States  of  this  Union  to  con- 
sider seriously  the  present  conditions.  It  is  not 
yet  too  late  to  remedy  them,  but  it  may  soon  be. 
We  have  become  intoxicated  with  the  idea  of 


CONCLUSION  301 

political  liberty  and  equality,  and  have  foolishly 
brought  these  ideas  into  play  within  the  family 
circle,  which  they  are  destined  to  ruin,  if  this 
policy  be  not  reversed.  The  husband  must  be 
reestablished  in  a  position  of  dignity  and  power, 
and  the  father  must  be  reestablished,  or  the  deluge 
will  be  upon  us  all — men,  women,  and  children 
alike. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  ultimate  reserve  force  in  every  commun- 
ity is  the  men,  not  the  women,  of  that  com- 
munity. Women  -have  many  weaknesses  which 
it  has  not  been  within  the  plan  of  this  work  to 
discuss.  The  objection  to  "Votes  for  Women" 
rests  on  such  fundamental  reasons  that  the  lesser 
ones  are  here  passed  over.  But  there  are  certain 
defects  which,  although  they  apply  to  both  men 
and  women,  seem  to  be  peculiarly  great  in  the 
case  of  women.  In  the  make-up  of  women's 
natures  there  seems  to  be  little  regard  for  law 
and  order,  or  for  the  relative  importance  and  in- 
herent dignity  of  persons  and  things.  Most 
women  have  little  regard  for  contracts.  So  great 
an  importance  is  attached  to  this  subject  by  men 
that  one  of  the  wise  provisions  of  the  Federal 
Constitution  provides  that  no  State  even  shall  pass 
a  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts.  No 
woman  would  ever  have  written  that.  They  sign 
the  most  definite  and  solemn  written  contracts  and 
then  have  no  idea  that  that  agreement  is  really 
binding  on  them.  Taught  from  their  youth  that  a 
woman's  privilege  is  to  change  her  mind,  it  is 
with  difficulty  that  they  realize  that  contracts 
really  should,  and  must,  be  kept.  In  addition  to 
this  they  have  little  or  no  regard  for  the  revenue 

302 


CONCLUSION  303 

laws.  They  are  by  nature  disposed  to  evade  the 
payment  of  taxes,  and  to  get  articles  through  the 
custom  houses  without  paying  duty. 

The  idea  that  this  is  the  age  of  "obedient  par- 
ents" comes  from  women's  laxity  of  ideas  in  re- 
gard to  the  duties  which  children  owe  to  their 
parents,  in  particular,  to  their  father. 

Their  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  relative  dig- 
nity of  persons  results  in  their  encouragement  of 
children's  calling  their  parents,  and  their  parents' 
friends,  by  their  first  names,  and  the  many  other 
manifestations  of  a  general  lowering  in  the  dignity 
of  human  life  and  in  the  conduct  of  human  af- 
fairs. 

Let  women's  ideas  be  fully  worked  out  in  the 
political,  business,  and  domestic  world,  and  it 
would  really  seem  that  life  in  such  a  community 
would  not  be  worth  living.  We  pass  from  the 
disorders  which  surround  us  in  our  childish  rela- 
tions with  other  immature  persons  into  the  quieter 
and  better  regulated  affairs  of  grown-up  people. 
Under  woman's  rule,  however,  it  is  believed  that 
there  would  be  no  such  improvement  in  the  con- 
ditions of  later  life,  but,  indeed,  that  the  disorders 
would  be  of  a  more  serious  nature  since  the  forces 
at  play  are  of  greater  violence. 

Arguments, — some  of  much  force,  and  well 
worthy  of  serious  consideration, — based  on  the 
peculiarities,  foibles,  and  weakness  of  women 
have  been  urged  by  many  in  opposition  to  their 
right  to  vote.  These  present  what  might  be  called 


304          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

the  comedy  which  would  follow  the  adoption  of 
these  ideas,  or  might  even  be  called  the  burlesque 
to  which  it  is  believed  government  would  be  there- 
by reduced.  The  argument  presented  in  this  work 
is  of  a  different  nature.  It  is  based  upon  the 
strength  of  woman.  But  this  woman's  movement 
has  as  its  tendency  the  development  of  this 
strength,  not  in  woman,  the  helpmeet  of  man,  but 
in  woman,  the  opponent  of  man.  Our  theme  is 
the  resulting  tragedy, — the  tragedy  of  love,  mar- 
riage, home,  children  and  country. 

These  modern  "progressive"  ideas  are  surely 
very  fine, — to  the  children  are  given  ideas  of  diso- 
bedience, bad  manners,  and  contempt  of  authority; 
to  the  wives,  progress  in  selfishness,  indifference  to 
duty,  and  independence  of  their  husbands.  For  the 
husbands  the  progress  is  marked  and  steady;  it  is 
toward  slavery  and  the  grave.  In  this  child-and- 
woman  worship  of  America,  while  Cosette  and 
Marius  revel,  Jean  Valjean  miserably  perishes. 
Manhood,  experience,  and  maturity  are  abased  be- 
fore weakness  and  immaturity. 

Nor  should  men  be  in  the  least  affected  by  the 
argument  that  since  women  have  so  largely  entered 
into  the  business  world  they  need  the  ballot  to 
"protect  them."  Women  need  no  such  protection 
from  men.  The  theory  that  wives  should  be  pro- 
tected from  their  husbands  and  children  from  their 
fathers  is  the  worst  possible  manifestation  of  an 
utter  misconception  of  the  natural  relations  which 
should  obtain  in  family  life;  and  this  theory  that 


CONCLUSION  305 

women  in  the  world  of  work  should  be  protected 
from  men,  their  natural  and  best  protectors,  is 
equally  false. 

This  was  the  same  argument  made  by  the  fa- 
natics of  a  generation  ago,  who,  in  the  days  of 
reconstruction,  to  crown  their  work  of  devastation 
in  the  South,  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  emanci- 
pated slave  the  ballot  "to  protect  him  from  the 
white  man,"  his  former  master.  Years,  filled 
more  or  less  with  political  trouble,  followed,  until 
about  a  decade  ago  when  this  act  of  stupendous 
folly  and  injustice  was  practically  nullified  by  Vir- 
ginia, and  the  negro  race  was  eliminated  from  the 
politics  of  our  State. 

What  injury  has  it  been  to  the  negro  to  be  thus 
disfranchised?  None  whatever.  The  negro  vote 
being  no  longer  a  possible  menace  to  the  peace 
and  good  order  of  the  State,  he  is  looked  upon 
possibly  with  more  kindness  and  consideration 
than  before.  The  two  races  occupy  the  same 
territory  in  peace,  the  negroes  receiving  steadily 
higher  wages  and  living  in  the  full  enjoyment  of 
all  their  rights  of  person  and  property.  They 
are  protected  equally  with  their  white  neighbors 
by  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth.  So  it  has 
always  been,  is  now,  and  would  continue  to  be, 
with  women.  The  worst  thing  that  could  happen 
to  women  would  be  to  have  withdrawn  from  them 
the  natural  protection  of  men, — a  protection  com- 
ing spontaneously  from  the  heart,  and  not  from 
laws,  which  would  have  as  a  natural  result  a 


306  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

separation  of  interest  and  a  chilling  of  sympathy 
rather  than  any  increased  protection. 

Viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  the  effect  upon 
the  State  at  large,  it  might  well  be  believed  that 
less  harm  would  come  to  it  from  reestablishing 
the  negro  vote  than  would  come  to  it  from  allow* 
ing  women  to  vote.  The  evil  in  one  case  would 
be  more  political.  We  have  met  that,  and  have 
proved  ourselves  able  to  overcome  it.  But  the 
other  may  destroy  all  peace  and  happiness  in 
the  home.  One  evil  we  have  been  able  to  survive. 
The  other  we  might  not.  When  we  allow  women 
to  vote  we  allow,  at  least  theoretically,  negro 
women  to  vote  as  well  as  white  women.  Can 
any  honest  or  sane  man  believe  this  would  im- 
prove the  internal,  external,  or  domestic  affairs  of 
the  great  Commonwealth  of  Virginia?  If  the 
ladies  of  the  State  cannot  always  control  their 
cooks  and  house-servants  in  their  household 
duties,  do  they  seriously  think  that,  if  they  quali- 
fied themselves  under  the  law,  and  became  legal 
voters,  they  could  any  better  control  them  in 
political  matters?  The  white  men  have  controlled 
the  negro  men.  Could  the  suffragettes  control 
the  negro  women?  They  might  succeed  in  some 
instances  in  intimidating  their  own  husbands,  but 
could  they  control  anybody  else? 

One  of  the  strongest  forces  in  the  politics  of 
the  country  to-day  is  the  temperance  movement, 
which  has  as  one  of  its  objects  the  elimination  of 
the  liquor  interests  from  all  control  of  politics. 


CONCLUSION  307 

This  certainly  would  be  a  desirable  thing  to  ac- 
complish. Intemperance  is  a  curse,  and  the  liquor 
interests  are  a  corrupting  element  in  public  affairs. 
They  have  had  entirely  too  much  power  in  some 
States,  and  deserve  to  be  put  down.  But  the 
men  who,  to  further  the  temperance  movement, 
are  willing  or  anxious  to  add  women  to  the  list 
of  voters, — thinking  they  can  count  on  a  majority 
of  the  feminine  vote  as  favorable  to  prohibition, 
- — become  by  their  zeal  in  one  cause  blind  to  the 
general  effect  of  what  they  are  proposing  to  do. 
In  spite  of  all  that  can  be  said  against  liquor,  the 
fact  remains  that  most  persons  are  not  drunkards, 
and  that  little  or  no  evil  would  flow  from  liquor 
if  each  drinking  man  restrained  himself  to  only 
a  very  moderate  use  of  it. 

The  victims  of  the  present  license  system  are 
few  in  number  compared  to  the  population  as  a 
whole;  and,  although  the  affairs  of  our  own  State 
are  not  all  we  could  wish  them  to  be,  yet  the 
Commonwealth,  except  for  the  domestic  disorder 
which  is  steadily  increasing  and  a  few  other 
matters  of  lesser  importance,  is  in  profound  peace 
within  itself  and  with  the  rest  of  the  world.  Its 
population  and  resources  are  increasing,  while  the. 
State  debt  is  decreasing.  Public  affairs  with  us> 
could  therefore  easily  be  in  a  much  worse  con*, 
dition  than  they  are,  even  with  liquor,  and  rings, 
and  other  evils  which  sometimes  occur. 

But  these  are  matters  which  men  should  settle 
with  other  men.     It  is  shameful  to  have  to  bring 


3o8  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

women  into  it,  or  to  allow  them  to  become  in- 
volved in  such  political  contests,  even  should  these 
very  women  be  anxious  to  do  so.  It  is  disgraceful 
for  men  to  have  to  resort  to  women  to  fight  their 
battles.  If  the  men  of  the  several  States  cannot 
properly  regulate  the  affairs  of  their  States  they 
will  never  be  well  regulated. 

Of  all  fatal  errors  we  can  imagine  none  worse 
than  this:  Suppose  the  proposition  were  adopted, 
the  women  are  given  the  right  to  vote,  and  having 
that  right,  join  with  the  men  of  the  temperance 
party,  and  destroy  the  liquor  business,  and  cast 
out  all  liquor  men  from  places  of  the  least  in- 
fluence in  State,  in  city,  or  in  county  affairs.  What 
then?  One  evil  would  have  been  suppressed,  but 
new  or  much  greater  troubles  for  all  men  would 
have  begun.  It  would  be  like  spending  a  million 
dollars  in  order  to  collect  a  debt  of  one  dollar;  or 
like  burning  up  your  house  in  order  to  get  rid  of 
a  rat;  or  like  cutting  off  your  head  in  order  to 
stop  the  toothache.  The  remedy  would  be  in- 
finitely worse  than  the  disease.  What  an  act  of 
monumental  folly  it  would  be  to  adopt  Woman's 

.  Suffrage,  not  on  its  own  merits,  but  merely  to 
accomplish  an  ulterior  object  of  minor  impor- 
tance ! 

/  What  all  the  resulting  evils  would  be  each  man 
can  try  to  imagine  for  himself,  but  it  seems  that> 
among  them  there  would  surely  be  domestic 
anarchy,  loss  of  all  power  and  influence  in  the 
family  on  the  part  of  husbands  and  fathers,  more 


CONCLUSION  309 

severe  forms  of  slavery  for  them,  more  divorces, 
ruinous  decrees  for  alimony,  the  prison,  work  in 
chains  on  the  public  roads,  neglect,  despair,  mur- 
der, and  suicide.  /All  these  calamities  can  be 
counted  upon  to  appear  like  so  many  specters  in 
the  dark  when  the  sun  of  man's  political  power 
shall  have  set. 

Do  not  let  the  quixotic  idea  take  possession  of 
you  that  such  a  course  would  be  unselfish  and 
noble,  and  that  it  will  be  a  matter  of  pride  for 
you  to  remember  hereafter  that  you  had  aided 
in  the  "elevation  of  woman."  What  you  would 
really  have  aided  in  accomplishing  would  be  the 
lowering  of  -men, — yourself  among  them.  Fight 
out  this  liquor  question  and  every  other  public 
question,  man  to  man.  Then,  whatever  the  result, 
the  men  of  each  State  would  still  be  able  to  control 
its  affairs,  and  preserve  the  peace  and  dignity  of 
the  Commonwealth. 

Authority  has  already  declined  far  enough  in 
this  country.  The  War  of  the  Revolution 
shattered  the  royal  authority.  The  Civil  War 
destroyed  the  aristocratical  power  of  the  slave- 
holders in  the  South,  and  weakened  the  position 
of  the  upper  classes  in  the  North  and  West. 
About  all  that  is  left  is  domestic  authority.  The 
suffragettes  seek  to  destroy  this.  From  aristoc- 
racy we  have  descended  to  democracy;  and  from 
democracy  we  are  now  moving  toward  mobocracy. 
The  same  line  of  thought  which  concludes  that 
women  should  vote  might  be  relied  upon  finally 


3io  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

to  assert  that  a  ship  should  be  navigated  accord- 
ing to  the  views  of  the  crew  and  the  passengers 
instead  of  by  experienced  officers,  that  a  school 
should  be  conducted  according  to  the  ideas  of  the 
scholars  instead  of  by  the  teachers,  that  a  church 
should  be  led  by  the  congregation  instead  of  by 
the  clergy,  that  the  affairs  of  a  family  should  be 
decided  by  the  children  instead  of  by  the  parents, 
that  a  court  should  decide  according  to  the  views 
of  the  bystanders  instead  of  according  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  judges,  that  an  army  should  act 
according  to  the  votes  of  the  privates  instead  of 
by  command  of  the  officers, — in  short,  that  all 
real  authority  be  abolished,  and  the  capricious 
whim  of  the  uninformed  majority  should  govern 
in  everything. 

The  word  "Suffragette"  has  been  used  so  often 
in  this  book  that  it  might  now  be  well  to  ask, 
is  a  Suffragette?  An  answer  in  the  nature 
of  a  description  rather  than  of  a  definition  might 
be  that  a  Suffragette  is  a  woman  who,  if  she  had 
been  a  man  and  one  of  a  crew  among  which  a 
mutiny  had  broken  out  would  be  found  among  the 
mutineers;  or  who,  if  she  were  a  soldier  and  a 
member  of  a  regiment  in  which  insubordination 
had  shown  itself  would  be  in  the  ranks  of  the 
rebels;  or  who,  if  an  employee  in  a  factory,  would 
join  in  the  strike;  or  who,  if  an  accused  man  were 
about  to  be  lynched,  would  help  to  dispatch  him; 
or  who,  if  she  were  in  prison  (as  a  good  many  of 
them  ought  to  be)  and  an  attack  were  made  upon 


CONCLUSION  311 

the  guards,  would  join  in  attempting  to  kill  them. 

The  characteristics  common  to  the  various 
groups  thus  presented  are  the  same  as  those  which 
belong  to  the  women  who  apply  to  political  and 
domestic  matters  the  theories  which  result  in  the 
words,  thoughts,  and  actions  of  Suffragettes.  Let 
no  one  be  deceived  as  to  the  work  of  these  women. 
Some  of  them  are  sincere,  some  are  deceivers, 
others  are  deceived,  many  are  ignorant  and 
thoughtless.  These  last  know  not  what  they  do 
and  little  appreciate  the  consequences  and  ultimate 
effects  of  actions  which  they  may  commit  with 
good  intentions  in  their  hearts  but  in  accordance 
with  doctrines  that  are  not  the  doctrines  of  peace 
but  are  those  of  war,  and  domestic  war  at  that. 
The  Suffragette  does  not  stand  before  the  world 
as  an  angel  of  peace,  wreathed  with  the  garlands 
of  good  will,  decked  with  the  flowers  of  love  and 
happiness,  and  crowned  with  the  ornament  of  a 
meek  and  quiet  spirit.  The  olive  branch  is  not  in 
her  hand;  it  is  beneath  her  feet.  And  the  war  in 
which  she  has  enlisted,  as  it  inevitably  involves  the 
peace  and  happiness  of  the  home,  is  a  movement 
which  may  entail  more  misery  and  disaster  on  the 
human  race  than  any  of  the  scourges  which  have 
yet  afflicted  it. 

If  the  Suffragettes  are  going  to  wreak  ven- 
geance on  the  men  of  this  generation  for  the 
fancied  wrongs  of  their  sex  during  the  period  of 
the  world's  past  history  it  would  be  well  for  their 
victims  to  take  warning  and  see  to  it  that  this 


3i2  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

thing  does  not  come  to  pass.  To  do  this  they  must 
be  true  to  themselves.  To  yield  passively  to  en- 
croachment after  encroachment  will  end  in  their 
complete  undoing,  and  will  cause  them  to  forfeit 
the  esteem  and  the  support  of  those  faithful 
women  who  still  feel  in  their  hearts  a  loyalty  to 
the  traditions  of  the  race,  and  who  see  in  man 
the  natural  protector  and  head  of  the  family  and 
not  a  mere  beast  of  burden. 

If  men  abdicate,  if  they  offer  no  resistance  to 
these  attacks  upon  them,  there  will  be  no  point  of 
crystallization  for  the  conservative  sentiment  to 
gather  around.  The  men  of  this  age  may  finally 
resemble  the  unfortunate  Louis  XVI,  whose  in- 
decisive and  yielding  course  in  the  face  of  a  rising 
storm  paralyzed  the  efforts  of  his  adherents  and 
deprived  them  of  any  rallying  point.  At  the 
heart  of  what  should  have  been  the  center  of 
opposition  there  was  no  heart;  and  the  dreadful 
drama  moved  on  until  the  tragedy  was  complete. 
The  men  of  the  western  world  are  acting  with  the 
same  irresolution  and  timidity  in  the  face  of  the 
crisis  which  confronts  them,  and  which  threatens 
to  entail  more  lasting  and  more  dreadful  conse- 
quences. 

These  Suffragettes  have  brought  suit  against 
all  men  to  deprive  them  of  their  birthright,  and 
to  reduce  them  to  a  political  level  with  women. 
With  a  perfectly  valid  and  overwhelming  defense 
to  this  proposition  it  is  amazing  to  behold  the 
attitude  and  to  observe  the  course  pursued  by 


CONCLUSION  313 

many  men  in  view  of  this  threatening  danger, 
which  in  its  effects  bids  fair  to  entail  more  dreadful 
consequences  to  civilization  than  would  follow  a 
barbarian  invasion.  With  an  inexcusable  inde- 
cision many  men  who  would  face  death  with 
courage  on  the  battlefield  against  a  national 
enemy  take  advantage  of  the  division  among  the 
women  on  this  revolutionary  issue.  While  in  their 
hearts  these  men  feel, — some  even  in  their  words 
and  writings  clearly  say, — that  this  thing  is  wrong, 
and  ought  not  to  be,  yet  personally  they  evade  the 
issue  and  ignominiously  desert  their  brave  allies 
among  the  women,  asserting  that  this  is,  after  all, 
a  question  to  be  determined  by  the  women. 

On  the  contrary,  this  is  a  question  above  all 
others  for  the  men  to  decide  and  to  decide 
promptly  and  definitely.  It  would  be  surprising 
how  soon  this  matter  could  be  settled,  and  rele- 
gated to  the  past,  if  the  men  once  clearly  under- 
stood the  full  meaning  of  the  movement  and  as 
clearly  expressed  themselves  about  it.  They  are 
the  court  of  last  resort  on  this  question,  and  if, 
instead  of  letting  the  disgraceful  struggle  con- 
tinue between  the  women  over  a  subject  of  the 
highest  importance  to  men,  they  would  say  that 
they  would  not  permit  it,  that  would  necessarily 
be  the  end  of  the  matter.  Of  course  there  is  no 
use  arguing  with  a  Suffragette  on  the  subject.  The 
men  should  say  promptly,  once  and  for  all,  that 
they  will  not  permit  it. 


CHAPTER  V 

How  long  since  has  it  been  that  the  men  of 
Virginia  have  not  been  able  to  attend  to  their 
public  affairs?  What  superior  wisdom  or  ability 
is  to  be  brought  in  the  lists  by  including  the  female 
members  of  all  the  families  in  the  State?  The 
few  women  now  agitating  this  subject  are  culti- 
vated persons,  many  are  possessed  of  property, 
and  all  are  ambitious  of  distinguishing  themselves. 
But  their  views,  if  adopted,  must  be  extended  to 
every  class  of  society, — the  rich  and  the  poor,  the 
virtuous  and  the  otherwise,  the  black  and  the 
white,  the  ignorant,  the  depraved,  the  pauper,  and 
the  outcast.  What  improvement  in  the  standard 
of  the  electorate, — woefully  low  as  it  still  is, — 
would  be  effected  by  such  a  change? 

All  these  women  are  the  mothers,  the  wives,  the 
sisters,  the  sweethearts,  or  the  cousins  of  the  men 
in  the  State.  If  the  men  were  to  vote  with  the 
women  on  this  question  it  would  merely  result  in 
larger  ballot-boxes  being  needed  and  in  more  votes 
to  be  counted.  If  the  men  were  to  vote  against 
the  women,  it  would  mean  that  into  the  badly 
demoralized  domestic  circle  another  apple  of  dis- 
cord is  to  be  thrown.  If,  with  only  men  voting, 
these  drastic  laws  against  fathers  and  husbands 
have  been  passed,  we  venture  the  prophecy  that 
with  women  voting  men  will  eventually  not  have 

314 


CONCLUSION  315 

a  right  left  worth  naming.  What  American  hus- 
band is  there  who  does  not  believe  that  he  is  en- 
titled to  be  treated  by  his  wife  as  well  as  a  China- 
man is  by  his?  But  he  is  not  so  treated.  He 
receives  but  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  defer- 
ence and  regard  which  the  heathen  receives. 
What  American  father  would  not  like  to  be  treated 
by  his  children  with  the  same  respect  that  a  Mo- 
hammedan receives  from  his?  But  he  is  far  re- 
moved from  such  treatment.  In  neither  case 
would  one  recognize  the  relationship  as  being  the 
same.  The  American  husbands  and  fathers  have 
already  placed  themselves  in  the  position  where 
they  receive  less  consideration  and  assistance  from 
their  wives  and  children  than  any  other  men  who 
have  ever  lived  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  The 
Americans'  weakness  in  this  regard  is  already  a 
demoralizing  factor  in  the  world  at  large,  and 
their  ruin  will  be  irrevocable  and  complete  when 
in  their  blindness  they  shall  have  conferred  equal 
political  powers  upon  the  women  with  whom  they 
live.  There  will  then  not  be  one  retreat  or 
stronghold  left  them,  not  one  sheltering  rock  in 
the  burning  desert.  For  the  average  American 
husband,  married  to  the  average  American  wife, 
if  he  have  his  property  in  his  wife's  name,  his 
resources  depleted  by  life  insurance,  surrounded 
by  superficially  educated  but  disrespectful  children, 
and  an  overdressed  but  ungovernable  wife, 
nearly  bound  hand  and  foot  by  the  system 
of  laws  now  in  force, — laws  which  keep  the  jail 


316          SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

ever  open  before  him, — if  he  put  the  ballot  in  his 
wife's  hand,  he  will  then  have  about  the  same  pros- 
pect for  happiness  as  had  Samson,  when,  shorn  of 
his  power  and  with  his  eyes  put  out,  he  was  chained 
to  the  treadmill  in  the  prison  to  grind  corn  for 
the  Philistines.  For  the  laws  which  hase  already 
well-nigh  produced  this  condition  can  be  counted 
upon  to  make  it  still  worse  should  the  women 
ever  control  legislation. 

There  is  no  reason  why  the  Legislature  of  each 
of  the  States  should  not  review  this  whole  sub- 
ject; this  relation  between  men  and  women  should 
be  put  on  some  basis  more  philosophic  and  infinite- 
ly more  satisfactory  to  men  than  it  now  is.  There 
is  no  reason  why  men  should  continue  to  condemn 
themselves  to  have  so  little  interest  in  the  property 
of  their  wives  and  children,  and  to  have  so  little 
control  over  their  own  domestic  affairs,  or  to  con- 
sign themselves  to  jail  at  their  wives'  command. 
The  effect  of  this  legislation  may,  if  not  soon  re- 
versed, bring  on  the  dreadful  condition  of  a  plan's 
foes  being  they  of  his  own  household. 

We  should  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  swept 
from  our  moorings  by  the  bad  example  of  others. 
If  every  other  State  in  the  Union  or  even  Old 
England  herself,  should  give  way  there  is  yet 
no  reason  why  Virginia  should.  The  original 
State  of  the  Amerian  Union  might  yet  render  an- 
other magnificent  service  to  the  Union,  and  to  the 
whole  Anglo-Saxon  race,  by  standing  firmly  for 
the  principles  which  have  prevailed  during  the 


CONCLUSION  317 

rise  and  progress  of  our  race  as  a  world  power. 
It  would  by  so  doing  afford  at  least  one  strong- 
hold where  these  principles  still  prevailed,  and 
which,  by  its  example,  might  be  made  the  base  of 
future  operations  for  bringing  back  this  race  to  a 
more  philosophic  and  satisfactory  system  of  so- 
cial and  domestic  construction. 

The  proposition  involved  in  the  demands  of  the 
Suffragettes  is  a  political  question  of  the  very 
highest  importance,  the  most  serious  one  which 
to-day  confronts  the  American  people.  It  is  one 
in  the  decision  of  which  they  should  make  no  mis- 
take. Political  mistakes  are  hard  to  rectify  and 
often  entail  the  most  disastrous  consequences  to 
millions  of  people  and  for  long  periods  of  time. 
The  history  of  the  world  is  made  up  in  large  part 
of  political  mistakes  and  the  dreadful  conse- 
quences that  resulted  from  them.  The  South 
made  a  mistake  when  it  seceded  from  the  Union. 
Four  years  of  bloody  warfare  and  the  chaos  of 
the  reconstruction  followed.  England  made  a 
mistake  when  she  persisted  in  enforcing  in 
America  laws  which  we  regarded  as  unjust.  Eight 
years  of  war  and  the  loss  of  its  most  valuable 
Colonies  was  the  result.  Charles  I  made  a  mis- 
take when  he  sought  to  establish  absolute  power 
in  England.  Civil  war  and  the  loss  of  his  life 
was  the  consequence.  Spain  made  a  mistake  when 
it  decided  to  enforce  on  the  inhabitants  of  Hol- 
land its  views  in  religious  matters.  One  hun- 
dred years  of  war  and  Spain's  fall  from  the  place 


3i 8  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

of  power  it  had  occupied  among  the  nations  was 
the  result.  Louis  XVI  made  a  mistake  in  not 
firmly  resisting  the  beginnings  of  the  Revolution. 
The  loss  of  his  life  and  a  generation  of  war  were 
the  consequences.  Napoleon  made  a  mistake 
when  he  undertook  the  conquest  of  Russia.  The 
loss  of  'his  army  and  of  his  empire  was  the  re- 
sult. Hannibal  made  a  mistake  when  he  under- 
took to  conquer  Rome.  Years  of  warfare  and 
the  ultimate  destruction  of  his  own  country  was 
the  result.  So  examples  could  be  multiplied  with- 
out end. 

Some  of  the  youngest  States  in  the  American 
Union, — themselves  at  most  only  a  generation 
or  two  old,  and,  therefore,  lacking  in  experi- 
ence,— have  seen  fit  to  place  women  on  a  footing 
of  political  equality  with  men.  There  is  no 
need  for  us  to  be  in  a  hurry  to  follow  their  ex- 
ample. No  great  harm  would  be  done  if  we 
waited  one  hundred  years,  in  order  to  see  how 
this  experiment,  .in  contravention  to  the  experi- 
ence of  the  race  for  the  past  many  hundred  years, 
will  turn  out.  That  the  men  in  these  Western 
States  choose  to  put  themselves  on  no  higher 
plane,  politically,  than  their  women  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  do  the  same.  The  levelling  proc- 
ess involved  in  this  step  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  traditions  of  the  South.  Long  before 
one  hundred  years  have  run  out,  the  men  of  these 
Western  States  may  be  looking  upon  the  men  in 
the  South  and  East, — who  have  not  followed 


CONCLUSION  319 

their  example  but,  instead,  have  held  to  their  su- 
periority in  all  political  matters, — as  constituting 
a  much  more  fortunate  race  than  themselves. 
Compared  to  the  weak  and  lowered  condition  of 
the  men  in  the  Women  Suffrage  States,  all  the 
men  in  the  other  States  would  occupy  much  higher 
and  much  more  dignified,  and  much  more  envi- 
able positions.  Why  should  the  men  of  any  State 
throw  away  this  advantage?  What  is  offered 
them  as  a  compensation  for  thus  giving  away  their 
birthright?  Nothing, — worse  than  nothing.  They 
are  asked  voluntarily,  with  no  benefit  whatever 
which  we  believe  would  ever  be  realized,  to  give 
up  and  lose  forever  a  precious  possession  which 
they  own.  They  are  asked  practically  to  commit 
political  suicide. 

Should  they  ever  do  this  how,  if  the  experi- 
ment turned  out  badly  for  them,  would  they  get 
the  power  back  which  they  had  lost?  Shorn  of 
their  strength,  and  chastened  by  the  afflictions, 
which  lie  waiting  for  them  under  such  a  system, 
they  could  then  only  utter  vain  regrets  for  the 
step  which  they  were  unable  to  retrace,  and  find 
themselves  sadder  and  wiser  men. 

Where  could  these  men  look  for  refuge? 
Surely  not  in  their  own  State,  for  the  women 
would  outvote  them  easily  when  their  vote  should 
be  added  to  that  of  the  men  who  were  weak 
enough  to  give  them  suffrage  in  the  first  instance. 
If  every  State  in  the  Union  adopted  Woman's 
Suffrage  these  men  could  find  relief  nowhere  but 


320  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

by  entirely  expatriating  themselves,  by  going  to 
some  other  country  where  these  rules  were  not 
in  force.  But  if  some  other  State  in  the  Union 
still  afforded  a  refuge,  why  should  not  any  man 
who  was  opposed  to  this  system  and  who  found 
himself  oppressed  by  it  consider  this  State  as  a 
haven  for  him,  and  select  it  for  his  home?  Good 
government,  and  sane  rules  in  regard  to  the  do- 
mestic relations  should  prove  attractions  of  the 
first  magnitude.  Let  the  States  of  the  South, 
therefore,  not  follow  the  unwise  lead  of  these 
Western  States  and  imitate  a  thing  which  they 
may  find  they  have  done  to  their  own  undoing,  but 
let  our  Southern  States  take  advantage  of  the 
situation  offered  to  strengthen  ourselves  for  all 
time  to  come. 

Virginia  has  gone  through  enough  trials  in  her 
history  not  to  add  this  one  to  them.  Let  us  rather 
profit  by  the  mistakes  of  these  other  States,  and  re- 
deem some  of  the  losses  we  have  suffered  in  the 
past.  We  still  have  a  sufficiently  large  territory 
within  which  to  erect  a  powerful  Commonwealth 
if  we  be  true  to  our  traditions,  and  if  we  do  not 
allow  ourselves  to  be  led  away  with  every  wind 
of  vain  doctrine.  Only  in  the  last  few  years  has 
the  South,  after  a  generation  of  trouble,  been 
able  to  throw  off  the  incubus  of  a  mass  of  unde- 
sirable voters  who  were  inflicted  upon  us  by  the 
very  sections  from  which  now  emanates  this  new 
movement  to  lower  the  standard  and  qualification 
of  citizenship.  The  advance  we  have  made  and 


CONCLUSION  321 

the  prosperity  we  are  now  enjoying  as  the  result 
of  this  victory  should  not  be  endangered  by  any 
such  hazardous  experiment. 

Let  well  enough  alone.  Instead  of  embracing 
the  cause  of  Suffrage  let  us  have  the  fortitude  to 
resist  and  to  reject  emphatically  and  cast  out  this 
modern  heresy,  and  so  keep  out  of  the  political 
quagmire  we  would  surely  fall  into  if  we  ever 
adopted  this  false  doctrine.  Let  us  hold  out  to 
the  men  afflicted  with  Woman's  Suffrage  in  the 
West  the  possibility  of  establishing  in  the  South 
a  home  worthy  of  the  name.  To  our  shores  have 
been  driven  in  the  past  the  Huguenot  persecuted 
in  France  for  his  religion,  and  the  Cavalier,  perse- 
cuted in  England  for  his  loyalty.  Let  us  continue 
to  be  able  to  afford  now  and  for  the  future  a 
refuge  for  the  husbands  and  fathers  persecuted 
by  the  Suffragettes  of  the  West  for  being  men. 

We  need  not  let  ourselves  be  much  affected  by 
the  arguments  for  woman's  suffrage  made  by  any 
of  the  men  in  the  Western  States  that  have 
adopted  it.  They  are  naturally  disposed  to  see  all 
the  other  men  in  the  country  do  the  same,  for  just 
as  long  as  they  do  not  these  others  will  occupy  a 
position  superior  to  themselves.  These  western 
men  can,  if  they  choose,  lower  themselves  po- 
litically and  otherwise  just  as  much  as  they  want 
to;  and  we. can,  if  we  choose,  forever  retain  our 
position  of  greater  dignity  and  importance  and 
all  our  ancient  rights  and  liberties. 

UA  Fox,"  says  ^Esop,  "being  caught  in  a  steel 


322  SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 

trap  by  his  tail,  was  glad  to  compound  for  his  es- 
cape with  the  loss  of  it;  but,  upon  coming  abroad 
into  the  world,  he  began  to  be  so  sensible  of  the 
disgrace  such  a  defect  would  bring  upon  him  that 
he  almost  wished  he  had  died  rather  than  left  it 
behind  him.  However,  to  make  the  best  of  a 
bad  matter,  he  formed  a  project  in  his  head  to 
call  an  assembly  of  the  rest  of  the  Foxes,  and 
propose  for  their  imitation  the  cutting  off  of  one's 
tail  as  a  fashion  that  would  be  very  agreeable 
and  becoming.  He  did  so  and  made  a  long 
harangue  upon  the  unprofitableness  of  tails  in 
general.  He  endeavored  chiefly  to  show  the  awk- 
wardness and  inconvenience  of  a  Fox's  tail  in 
particular,  adding  that  it  would  be  both  more 
graceful  and  more  expeditious  to  be  altogether 
without  a  tail,  and  that,  for  his  part,  what  he  had 
only  imagined  and  conjectured  before  he  now 
found  by  experience,  for  he  had  never  enjoyed 
himself  so  well  and  found  himself  so  easy  as  he 
had  done  since  he  had  cut  off  his  tail.  He  said 
no  more,  but  looked  about  with  a  brisk  air  to  see 
what  proselytes  he  had  gained,  when  a  sly  old 
thief  in  the  company,  who  understood  the  trap, 
answered  him,  with  a  leer:  I  believe  you  may 
have  found  a  conveniency  in  parting  with  your 
tail,  and  when  we  are  in  the  same  circumstances 
perhaps  we  may  do  so  too." 

What  should  be  the  most  beloved  spot  on  earth 
is  one's  home,  and  the  tenderest  and  most  endur- 


CONCLUSION  323 

ing  of  human  relationships  cluster  around  it. 
Here  should  be  found  love,  care,  and  protection 
for  the  young;  affection,  obedience,  and  reverence 
for  the  old.  Happiness  for  all  its  members  will 
result  from  a  correct  understanding  and  discharge 
of  the  duties,  rights,  and  mutual  relations  of  the 
persons  who  compose  the  little  group  here  closely 
united  to  one  another.  But  for  this,  order  is 
essential,  and  order  requires  a  leader  clothed  with 
proper  authority.  Husbands  and  fathers  are 
these  natural  leaders.  Any  movement  of  society, 
therefore,  which  degrades  or  prejudices  their 
position  and  influence  cannot  be  right,  for  it  is  in 
opposition  to  the  established  order  of  creation. 


END 


324 


SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


INDEX 


Abandonment,  or  failure  to  sup- 
port, as  well  as  abandon- 
ment and  failure  to  sup- 
port, punishment  proposed 
for,  153-154. 

Abbott  quoted,  193-194. 

Abraham  and  Isaac,  195. 

Abyss,  society  moving  towards, 
249. 

Accomplishments,  women  losing, 
132-133. 

Adoption  of  child  without  consent 
of  father,  201-202. 

Adult,  population,  ^all  liable  to  get 
put  in  jail  under  act  in- 
tended to  protect  children 
under  seventeen,  205-206. 
basis,  how  business  of  the 
world  could  be  put  on, 
260. 

JEsop   quoted,    120,   322. 

Affectionate,  husband  can  be  too 
much  so,  141-142. 

Affections,  husband  entitled  to  his 
wife's,  34. 

Age    at    which    honest    and    wise 

men   marry,    123. 
of    children,    list    of,    may    aid 
fathers  in  keeping  out  of 
jail,    262-265. 

Agrippina,    128. 

Alimony,      drastic      provisions      of 
law     relating     to,     to     be 
paid      by      the      husband, 
pending    suit    for    divorce 
against     him,     108-114. 
decrees     for,     often     very     se- 
vere,   163. 
suicide      of      husband      rather 

than    pay,    147. 
allowed  wife   against  her  hus- 
band   who    was    not    con- 
siderate   enough,    151. 
husband     in     charge     of     the 

deputy    sheriff,    178. 
man    against    whom,    is    to    be 
decreed,   179. 

American     husband       a      byword, 

75. 

children  also  becoming  a  by- 
word, 251. 

father  not  respected,  as  much 
as  the  Mohammedan, 
315. 

nor  husband  as  well  as  a 
Chinaman,  315. 


Anatomy,     should    be     studied     by 
men        before       marriage, 
120. 
Ancient      City,      quotations      from 

The,    186-191. 

extent     of     paternal     author- 
ity,   187-199. 
Law,     quotations     from,     191- 

192. 
Anglo-Saxon,   rise  and  progress  of 

the    race,    287-289. 
Virginia's         opportunity        to 
render      service      to      the 
race    316-322. 
Anti-Suffragettes,     work     dedicated 

to,  5. 

the    friends    of    man,    277-278. 
Apprentice,    binding    of    child    as, 

201. 

in  Norfolk,  master  of,  may  be 
put  in  jail  for  acts  of, 
212-213. 

rights  of  father  as  to  bind- 
ing child  as,  223. 
Arguments,  of  the  suffragettes, 
specimens  of,  287-289, 
289,  290-292,  292-293, 
293,  293-295,  296-299, 
304-309. 

of  this  work  based,  on 
strength,  not  weakness 
of  woman,  304. 
of  men  from  woman  suffrage 
States  unreliable,  321- 
322. 

Assassination    of   the   President   at- 
tempted by   a  boy  of  sev- 
enteen,  236-237. 
Authority,    ancient    paternal,    187- 

199. 
present   lack   of  paternal,   199- 

254. 

final    blow    to    parental,    211. 
generally     commands     respect, 

226-227. 
has    declined    far    enouh,    309- 

310. 

Automobile,  widow  with  new,  181. 
Baby,       husband      judicially      sen- 
tenced   to    walk    the    floor 
with  the,  152,  153. 
Baby-carriages,     husbands     rolling, 

Bachelor,  idleness  in  a,  and  in  a 
married  man,  compared, 
122. 


INDEX 


325 


life    of    intelligent,    worth    liv- 
ing, 123. 
may     thrive     by     observation, 

124. 

new  definition  of,  165. 
Bacon    quoted,    119,    119. 
Balzac   quoted,   120. 
Bankruptcy,     husband    put    in,    by 
wife       and       d,aughter-in- 
law,    157-158. 

Barbarian  invasion,  woman's  suf- 
frage worse  than,  312- 
313. 

Barry,   Countess   du,   130. 
Bassanio  and  Portia,   94. 
Battle,    marriage    a    field    of,    121. 
Beating  of  husband  by  man   hired 
for    the     purpose    by     his 
wife,    144-145. 

Bed,  police  called  in   to  decide   on 
which     side     of,     consorts 
should  sleep,   91. 
husband    made    to    sleep    with 

dog   in,    137-138. 
wife    killed    in    quarrel    over 
which       should      get       up 
first,    138. 

Beginning,    marriage    a,     123. 
"Better      Half,"      perverted     ideas 
in     relation    thereto,     126- 
132. 

Bible,  rules  of,  in  relation  to 
husban  dand  wife,  15-18, 
23,  83-84. 

our    former    rules    of    law    in 

regard    to    husbands    and 

fathers  more   in   harmony 

with   the,   25. 

New    Testament    rules    as     to 

divorce,    83-84. 
enjoins     orderly     construction 

of   society,    100. 
provision     for    the     future    of 

the  family,  170. 
rules     in     relation     to     parent 
and    child,     185,     266-267. 
instances    of    the    ancient    pa- 
ternal       authority,        194- 
198. 

E  raise    of    children,    198-199. 
ow     parental     authority     en- 
forced   under    the    Mosaic 
law,    214. 

family  life  now  should  be 
regulated  as  far  as  pos- 
sible in  accordance  with, 
268-269. 

Birthright  _  of  man  involved  in 
suit  brought  by  suf- 
fragettes, 312-313. 


Blind      leading      the     blind,     277- 

279. 
Blessing,    whether    woman    now    a, 

to  a  man,  125. 
Borgia,  Lucretia,  129. 
"Boss,"  case  of  wife  who  would 

be,  145-146. 
Bulwer  quoted,  125. 
Buried  his  wife,  the  man  who 

had,     and    the    man    who 

had    not,    122. 
Burton    quoted,    119. 
Butterworth   quoted,    124. 
Byron    quoted,    123. 
Campbell   quoted,    146. 
Care    taken    of    us    when    we    are 

born,  die  and  marry,  124. 
Catharine   II.,    129. 
Catharine   de    Medici,    130. 
Chain-gang,      husband      rather      be 

sent  to,  than  live  with  his 

wife,    148-150. 
Chains,      husbands      and      fathers 

liable   to  be   sent   to  work 

in,    on     the     public    roads 

for       non-support,      when 

they  live  in  cities  of  over 

15,000,    52-59. 
Chancery,   courts   of,   alone   should 

exercise       discretio  nary 

powers,    247-248. 
Characters    which    might    be    seen 

in  any  of  our  cities,  178- 

181. 
Charge,     husband,    willing    to     pay 

any     reasonable,     for     the 

satisfaction    of   hitting   his 

wife,   154. 
Chattel,    meaning    of,    21. 

wife    not    an    owned,    175. 
Cheating    works    never    thrive,    78- 

80. 
Child,    father    in    general    entitled 

to  the  care  of,   80,  222. 
one  killed  by   a  mother,   145. 
Chapters    on    father   and,    185- 

269. 

the  father  the  source  and  ori- 
gin   of    the    life    of    the, 

186-187. 
father  has  now   no  interest  in 

property   of   a   living,   200. 
taking    of,    from    father,    200- 

202,    248,    258-259. 
father  put  in  jail  for  not  sup- 
porting,   202-206. 
under  seventeen,  Act  intended 

to    protect,    202-206. 
a    dangerous    creature    now   to 

have    around,    205-206. 


326 


SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


under  fourteen   may  be    taken 
from       its      parents       for 
many    causes,    206-207. 
whipping,     better     than     juve- 
nile   court,    206. 
whipped    by    order    of    court, 

207-208. 

committing   of,   to    Prison    As- 
sociation     of      Va.,      208- 
209. 
and     to     Negro     Reformatory 

Ass'n   of   Va.,   209. 
Act    in    regard    to    cruelty    to, 

210. 

dependent,  wayward,  or  delin- 
quent, may  be  taken  by 
State  Board  of  Charities 
and  Corrections,  211. 
more  under  the  authority  of 
its  guardian  than  its 
father,  211.  . 

wages  of,  not  liable  for  the 
debts  of  his  parents,  215- 
216. 

property  of,  cannot  be  leased, 
sold  nor  encumbered  by 
parent,  216. 

small    sum    arising    in    a    suit 
belonging  to,  may  be  paid 
to  one  of  its  parents,  216. 
descent     of     property     belong- 
ing to,   217-219. 
may     be     a     millionaire,     and 

father  poor,   218. 
control    of   property   belonging 
to  married  woman  who  is 
an    infant,    219. 
who    entitled    to    the    damages 
on    account    of    death    of, 
219. 

interest    of,    alone    considered 
in    question   of    their   cus- 
tody,  220. 
modes      of      appointment      of 

guardian    for,    220-221. 
guardian    and    father    in    their 
relations     to     each     other 
and    to     wife    and    child, 
224-233. 

powers  over,  taken  from  their 
fathers      and     transferred 
to   a  court,    227-228. 
natural    effect  of    recent   legis- 
lation  upon  the  character 
of    the,    232-254. 
property  ^  set  fire  to  by,  235. 
wanton  injury  of  property  by, 

235-236. 

attempt  of  youth  of  seven- 
teen to  assassinate  the 
President,  236-237. 


of    seven    kills    playmate,    237. 
of     ten     shoots     another     boy, 

237. 
of    five    tries    to    wreck    train, 

237-238. 

keeping  in  order  of  children 
becomes  more  and  more 
difficult  under  recent  Act, 
239-250. 

under     seventeen     allowed,    to 

commit     one     crime     with 

more     or     less     impunity, 

239-250. 

this    made    a    privileged    class 

of  criminals,   245-248. 
generally   leniently    dealt   with 

by  juries,   250. 

laxity  in  bringing   up   of  chil- 
dren   due    to    the    women, 
251-254. 
fate    of,    in    home    broken    up 

by   divorce,    253-254. 
training  of  the,  injured  by  re- 
cent   legislation,     261-262. 
suggestion  to  aid  fathers  keep- 
ing   out    of    jail,    by    hav- 
ing   list    of    ages    of    his 
children,    262-265. 
belongs  even  to  unworthy  par- 
nets,    266-268. 

Christian,    according    to    the   policy 
of     recent     statutes,     mar- 
riage   no    longer,    117-118. 
Church,    which    husband    and    wife 

should    attend,    74. 
claims    jurisdiction    over    mar- 
riage  and   divorce,    and   is 
on    the    side    of    the    hus- 
band,   255. 
Cibber   quoted,    123. 
Citizens,     rights    of,    not    properly 
regarded  in  the  matter  of 
condemning   husbands  and 
fathers    to    work    on    the 
public    roads    for    non-sup- 
port,   56-60. 

law  abiding^,  must  have  his  train- 
ing in  the  home,  252. 
Civilization,     ours     off     the     track, 

77-78. 

Cleopatra,    128. 
Clinging  type  of  woman  becoming 

rarer,    114. 

Clothes-tree,     picture     of     husband 
beaten    by    his     life    over 
the  head  with,   76. 
Clytemnestra,    127. 
Colton  quoted,  121. 
Comfortable,         whether         woman 

makes  a  house,   121. 
Commandment,  the  fifth,  185. 


INDEX 


327 


Community,  of  property  rights  as 
between  husband  and 
wife — none  at  common 
law,  27. 

theory  of,    102-105. 
Compulsory  education,  condition  of 

parents  under,    167-168. 
Conditions  in   domestic   affairs   go- 
ing   from    bad    to    worse, 
162-163. 

Congreve  quoted,  119,  120. 
Consent,     of     father     superior     to 
mother  as  to  marriage   of 
child,    222-223. 

Contempt  of  court,  husband  liable 
to  be  put  in  jail  for,  for 
not  paying  alimony,  costs 
of  suits  and  fees  of  coun- 
sel, when  suit  for  divorce 
is  brought  against  him, 
108-114. 

in  removing  child  under  sev- 
enteen who  has  committed 
a  crime,  243. 

dpctrine    of,    used    to    subvert 
constitutional     guarantees, 
243. 
Contract,  wife  could  make  none  at 

common    law,    29. 
marriage,    what    could    be    ef- 
fected by,  136. 
specimen   of  one  according   to 

recent    ideas,    151-152. 
women's  disregard  of,  302. 
Court   House,    the   characters   seen 

hanging  around,    180. 
claims    jurisdiction    over    mar- 
riage and   divorce,   and  is 
on  the    side   of   the    wom- 
an,   255-259. 

one    of    the    millstones    grind- 
ing husbands  and   fathers 
to   pieces,    255,    259. 
hostile  to   husband,   257-259. 
Courtship    compared    to    marriage, 

120,  125. 

Cowper  quoted,    142-143. 
Crawford,  quoted,   122. 
Craze,    women    and    children,    282- 

283. 

Crime,  children  under  seventeen 
allowed  to  commit  one, 
each,  with  more  or  less 
impunity,  239-250. 
Criminal,  children  under  seven- 
teen made  privileged  class 
of,  239-250. 

courts    not      proper      ones    to 
which    to    give    discretion, 
247-248. 
Croesus,  stepmother   of,   128. 


Cruelty,  grounds  for  divorce,   86. 
a  particular  case  of  suit  for  di- 
vorce for,  in  New  York,  90. 
alleged    by    wife    against    her 
husband    who    kept    thirty 
cents    of    his   own    week's 
wages,   150. 
act   in   regard  to,    to  children, 

210. 

Crusades,  283. 

Curfew  laws  proposed  against  hus- 
bands, 73-74. 
Courtesy,    rules    in    regard    to,    30, 

32,    33,    39,    221-222. 
Damages,  for  death  of  infant,  who 

entitled  to,   219. 

Danger,  in  constituting  children 
under  seventeen  a  privi- 
leged class  of  criminals, 
239-250. 

in  the  extension  of  the  doc- 
trine of  contempt  of  court, 
243. 

in  giving  a  discretionary  pow- 
er     to      criminal      courts, 
247-248. 
to  our  judicial  system  from  too 

much  law,   264-265. 
men  of  the  western  hemisphere 
facing  a  threatening,  with 
irresolution,    312. 
in   adopting  women's   suffrage, 

317-322. 

Dark  Ages   may  be  brought   again 
upon    the    world    by     do- 
mestic   disorder,    159. 
Daughter,    the    word,    passing    out 

of  our  language,  76. 
sues  her  father  for  small  sum, 

259-260. 

David  quoted,  170. 
Davidson  quoted,  124. 
Death,  less   serious  than  marriage, 

121,  125. 
of   child,    descent   of  property, 

217-219. 
damages    for,    of    infant,    who 

entitled  to,  219. 
Debt,  leads  to  marriage,  121. 
Decline  of  authority  has  gone   far 

enough,   309-310. 
De  Coulanges  quoted,   186-191. 
Delilah,    suffragettes    compared    to, 

276. 

Deluge,    threatens    all    unless    hus- 
bands     and      fathers      be 
clothed  with  more  author- 
ity,   300-301. 
Descent    of   property    on    dea.th    of 

child,    217-219. 
father  preferred,  222* 


328 


SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


Desertion,  ground  of  divorce,   85. 
Diamonds  held  to  be  necessaries  in 

Indiana,  70-72. 

Dickens  quoted,   125,   125-126. 
Dictator,  last  resort  for  the  safety 

of  the  state,  100. 
Difficulties       besetting       marriage, 

118-126,  137-181. 
Dignity    of    life    lowered    by    some 

women's   ideas,   303. 
Discretion,   given  to   court  in  trial 
'of    children    und,er    seven- 
teen,  246-248. 

vesting  discretionary  powers  in 
criminal    courts  a   danger- 
ous policy,  247-248. 
Disorder,   present,   in    the   state  of 
marriage,    137-181. 

domestic  and  civil,  due  to  lack 
of  training  in  obedience 
to  fathers  on  the  part  of 
children,  233-254. 

encouraged  by  act  in  regard 
to  crimes  committed  by 
children  under  seventeen, 
239-250. 

elements  of,  in  favor  of  fe- 
male suffrage,  278-279. 

inevitable  result  of  legislation 
against  natural  order, 
279. 

Divorce,    rules  of   the   New    Testa- 
ment as  to,  83-84. 

not  allowed  in  South  Carolina, 
83. 

some  of  the  grounds  for,  in 
Virginia,  84-86. 

specimens  of  suits  for,  in  Mis- 
souri, 86-90. 

natural  result  of  recent  legis- 
lation, 96-97. 

will  increase  until  order  re- 
stored to  the  relation  of 
husband  and  wife,  97. 

condition   of,   in   Rome,    under 
the  Empire,  104-105. 

most  suits  for,  brought  by 
women,  105-108. 

some  of  the  causes  suggested 
for  the  great  number  of, 
106-108. 

Virginia  statute  which  applies 
against  the  husband,  when 
wife  brings  suit  for,  108- 
.114. 

in  disfavor  in  Virginia,  116. 

uniformity  of  laws  on,  not 
desirable  for  us,  116-118. 

four  members  of  same  family 
suing  for,  139. 

granted   against   husband   who 


was         not         considerate 
enough,    151. 

against  husband  who  had  the 
hookwomn,  154. 

asked  for  because  husband  was 
not  making  enough 
money,  154-155. 

effect  and  object  of  suits  for, 
163. 

wife  had  no  right  to,  in  primi- 
tive times,  188. 

by  decree  in,  suit,  father  may 
have  to  support  children 
in  his  wife's  possession, 
220. 

what  becomes   of  the   children 
when     homes     broken     up 
by,  253-254. 
Dix  quoted,  122. 
Dog,   husband  made  to  sleep  with, 

137-138. 

Domestic,    anarchy  cause  of  trage- 
dies,   50-51. 

happiness,  Cowper  quoted,  142- 
143. 

disorder,  how  the  laws  are  in- 
terpreted and  administered 
by  some  of  the  lower  tri- 
bunals in  cases  involving, 
160-163. 

affairs,  conditions  in,  going 
from  bad  to  worse,  162- 
163. 

worship  of  the  ancients,  186- 
188. 

importance  of  legislation  af- 
fecting, 204-205. 

construction  of  Virginia  af- 
fected by  recent  legisla- 
tion, 223-254. 

what  quality  calculated  to  pro- 
duce the  greatest  happi- 
ness, 224-254. 

life,  approved  system  of,  being 
overthrown  by  recent  acts, 
248-250,  261-262. 

bad  effect  of  State  interfering 
in,  affairs,  267-268. 

laws  affecting,  relations  should 
be  in  harmony  with  our 
natures,  and  immutable, 
280. 

Doubtful,  sovereignty,  domestic 
disorder  similar  to  wars 
that  grow  out  of,  159-160. 
Dower,  meaning  of  the  words  in 
the  marriage  ceremony  re- 
lating to,  20-23. 

common  law  rule  as  to,   27. 
"Down  with  the  tyrant  man,"  133. 
Dreyfus,   Madam,   obtained   release 


INDEX 


329 


of  her  husband  from  Dev- 
il's Island,  84. 

Drunkards,  confirmed,  may  be  sent 
to  work  on  the  roads,  52- 
58. 

Duties,  of  husband  to  wife  en- 
forced by  severe  penal- 
ties, while  those  she  owes 
him  not  enforced,  68-69. 
as  between  husband  and  wife, 
and  father  and  child,  only 
those  due  by  the  husband 
and  father  enforced,  45, 
135-136. 

a  wife's  idea  of  the,  her  hus- 
band owed  her,  150. 
as     exemplified     in     a     recent 
marriage      contract,      151- 
152. 

of  child  to  honor  parents,  185. 
of     wives     to    their     husbands 
and    children,    importance 
of,   277. 

Early  marriages,   120,   124. 

Enst,  ancestors  worshipped  in,  232. 

Education,  compulsory,  position  of 
parents  under,  167-168. 

Eggs  and  the  conjurer's  box,  125. 

Elevation  of  women,  309. 

Eliot  quoted,  123,   123-125. 

Encumbrance,  of  land  belonging  to 
child,  cannot  be  made  by 
father,  216. 

Endowment  at  the  church  door, 
20-23. 

Equitable  separate  estates,  may  still 
be  created  so  as  to  exclude 
husband  from  his  wife's 
property,  41. 

Evidence,  rules  of,  betweeri  hus- 
band and  wife,  80-82. 

Evil  eye,  husbands  viewed  with, 
162-163. 

Excellence  of  women,  doctrine  of, 
discussed,  126-132. 

Exemptions,  dishonest,  partly  the 
cause  of  hostile  legislation 
against  husbands  and 
father,  78-80. 

Family,  slaughtered  by  the  father, 

143. 
others      nearly      exterminated, 

146,   150-151,   233. 
slaughtered   by  the   wife,    148- 

149. 

punishment   proposed    for  hus- 
bands who  abandon  or  fail 
to  support,  153-154. 
violence     and     bloodshed     in, 

character  of,  159. 
sacredness  of,  attacked  during 


French  Revolution,  176- 
177. 

religion  of  the  ancients,  186- 
188. 

not  proper  subject  to  be  regu- 
lated by  a  judge,  253. 

life  should  be  regulated  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Bible, 


groups  make  up  society,  279. 

women  cannot  properly  be  the 

head  of,  279. 

Father,  recent  legislation  hostile  to, 
25,  45-6,  219-220,  222. 

may  be  put  in  jail  for  non-sup- 
port of  child,  43-52. 

contemptible  condition  to 
which  reduced  under  mod- 
ern legislation,  45-50,  52- 
59,  227-234. 

in  cities  over  15,000  may  be 
sent  to  the  roads  for  non- 
support,  52-59. 

reduced  to  slavery.  45,  133- 
136. 

kills  son,  145. 

deserted  during  summer  vaca- 
tion, 166. 

chapters  on,  and  child,  185- 
269. 

honor  due  to,  185. 

present  liberty  of  wife  and 
child  at  the  expense  of, 
185-186. 

the   principal   parent,   186. 

the  source  and  origin  of  the 
life  of  the  child,  186-187. 

ancient  authority  of,  187-199, 
226-227. 

priest  of  the  hearth,  187-188. 

over    wife   and   child,    188-199. 

alone  responsible  to  the  state, 
189-190. 

judicial  within  the  home,  190- 
195. 

all  property  in  the  family  be- 
longed to,  189-194. 

present  weak  authority  of,  199- 
254. 

treated  now  as  a  public  ene- 
my, 199. 

has  no  interest  in  the  prop- 
erty of  living  children, 
200,  211,  215. 

children  taken  from,  200-202, 
248,  258-259. 

binding  .of  child  as  apprentice, 
201. 

guardian  may  take  child  from 
father  in  certain  cases, 
201. 


330 


SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


child  may  be  taken  from,  by 
overseer  of  the  poor  in 
certain  cases,  201. 

child  may  be  adopted  without 
consent  of,  201-202. 

may  be  put  in  jail  for  not  sup- 
porting child,  202-206. 

or  sentenced  to  the  public 
roads,  203. 

has  apparently  no  rights  in 
regard  to  child  accompany- 
ing mother  to  peniten- 
tiary or  born  there,  206. 

children  under  fourteen  may 
be  taken  from,  by  the 
court  for  a  number  of 
causes,  206-207. 

whipping  children  by  order  of 
court,  instead  of  by,  207-208. 

children  taken  from,  on  the 
ground  of  cruelty,  and  so 
forth,  210. 

remnants  of  authority  of, 
swept  away,  211,  213-214, 
222. 

has  less  rights  to  his  child's 
property  and  person,  than 
the  guardian,  211. 

punishment  of,  for  giving  chil- 
dren certain  things,  211- 
212. 

in  Norfolk,  may  be  put  in  jail 
for  acts  committed  by 
child,  212-213. 

how  he  enforced  his  authority 
under  the  law  of  Moses, 
214. 

is  not  guardian  ex  officio, 
215,  225. 

has  no  right  to  bring  suit  for 
child,  215. 

nor  defend  suit  brought 
against  him,  215. 

debts  of,  no  claim  against 
wages  of  child,  215-216. 

cannot  lease,  sell  nor  encum- 
ber property  of  child,  216. 

may  receive  small  sum  arising 
in  suit,  belonging  to  his, 
216. 

rights  of,  on  death  of  his 
child,  217-219. 

may  be  poor,  and  child  a  mil- 
lionaire, 218. 

how  treated  in  regard  to  the 
property  of  a  married 
daughter  who  is  a  minor, 
219. 

his   child,   219. 
no  relief  intended  for,  in  any 


new  legislation,  all  is  hos- 
tile to  him,  219-220. 
by  decree  of  divorce,  may  be 
compelled  to  support  chil- 
dren in  his  wife's  pos- 
session, 220. 

child,  not  the  father,  consid- 
ered in  the  question  of  the 
child's  custody,  220. 

consent  of  guardian  to  mar- 
riage of  child,  overrides 
objection  of  parents,  220. 

appointment  of  guardian  by, 
220-221,  222. 

courtesy    of,    30,    32,    33,    39, 

221-222. 

rights  between,  and  mother, 
222-223. 

in  general  entitled,  to  the  cus- 
tody of  the  children,  80, 
222. 

preferred    in    the    descent    of 

property,   222. 

rights  superior  in  consenting  to 
marriage  of  child,  222- 
223. 

right  to  bind  child  as  appren- 
tice, 223. 

viewed  in  contrast  with  guard- 
ian, 224-233. 

recent  laws  injurious  to  the 
development  of  the  charac- 
ter of,  230-232. 

in  the  East,  worshipped  as  a 
divinity,  232. 

present  position  to  which, 
often  reduced,  232,  260. 

shoots  son  and,   daughter,  233. 

often  killed  in  family  quar- 
rels, 233-234. 

not  a  judge  but  the,  the  prop- 
person  to  regulate  a  fam- 
ily, 253. 

as  presented,  on  the  stage,  255- 
257. 

sued  by  his  daughter  for 
small  sum,  259-260. 

suggestion  to  aid,  in  keeping 
out  of  jail,  262-265. 

there  should  be  one  State  in 
which  a  man  was  the  real, 
of  his  children,  265. 

suffragete  argument  to  take 
away  the  headship  of  his 
family,  290-292. 

power  of,  must  be  reestab- 
lished, 300-301. 

Feast,  marriage  what  kind  of,  121. 
Fire,  need  of,  to  put  wife  in,  125. 
Ford  quoted,  124. 


INDEX 


For    Sale,   the    pretty   house   which 

was,  180. 

Forty,  marriage  to  men  after,  121. 
different  views  of  men  of,  and 

boys,  123. 

Fox  who  had  lost  his  tail,  like  the 
men  from  women  suffrage 
states,  322. 

Freedom  of  wife  and  child  does 
not  extend  to  husband  and 
father,  134. 

French  Revolution,  some  women 
who  helped  to  bring  on, 
130. 

the  knitting  women,   131. 
men     now     acting    like     Louis 

XVI.,  312. 

family  life  attacked,  176-177. 
Fugitive   from    justice,    indictment 
of,  for  felony  a  ground  of 
divorce,   85. 
slave   law   applies  to   husbands 

and  fathers,  134. 
Funeral  of  man   shot  by  his  wife, 

179. 

Good,   only   course  left   after  mar- 
riage is  to  be,  125. 
Goods,  meaning  of,  in  the  marriage 

ceremony,  21. 
Gout  cured  by  marrying  a  certain 

kind  of  widow,  125-126. 
Government,  ideas  of,  weakened  by 
too    much    criticism,    277- 
278. 

Grave,   description   of  the  road  to, 

for  the  married  man,  124. 

some  which   might  be   seen   in 

the  cemetery,  179. 
progress  of  husband,  is  toward 

slavery  and  the,  304. 
Greene,  Mrs.  Hetty,  quoted,  107. 
Guardian,     may     take     child     from 
father     in     certain     cases, 
201. 

has  rights  superior  to  the 
father  in  regard  to  the 
person  and  property  of 
the  child,  211. 

in  Norfolk,  may  be  put  in  jail 
for  acts  of  ward,  212-213. 
father  not  ex  officio,  215,  225. 
ad    litem,    not    the    father,    de- 
fends   suit    against    child, 
215. 

consent  of,  to  marriage,  over- 
rides objection  of  parents, 
220. 
modes  of  appointment  of,  220- 

221,  222. 

father  viewed  in  contrast  with, 
224-233. 


Guardianship,  suffragette  argument 
to  deprive  father  of  pow- 
ers in  relation  to,  of  his 
child.  290-292. 

Hanging  and,  marriage,  119,  123. 

Happiness  of  all  the  members  of 
the  family,  end  desired, 
92-93. 

with    or    without    a   wife,    122. 
what     policy     most     likely     to 
produce,    224-254. 

Hard  cases  make  bad  laws,  262, 
267. 

Hart    quoted,    124-125. 

Hay   quoted,    122. 

Head,   of  the   family,    husband  the 

natural,    91-101,    279. 
necessity  for,    in   every  group, 

91-93,    269,   279. 
disorder    in    the    domestic    cir- 
cle  due   to   lack  of   recog- 
nized,   159-160,    268-269. 
woman    cannot    be    proper,    of 

the    family.    279. 
suffragette    argument    to    pre- 
vent   father    from    being, 
of    his    family,    290-292. 

Heaven,   no   marriages   in,    122. 

Helen,    127. 

Help,  wanted  by  woman  for  man 
to  beat  her  husband,  144- 
145. 

needed,  by  man  who  is  in  fa- 
vor of  woman's  suffrage, 
295-296. 

Herodias,   127. 

Hiring  of  a  husband  to  his  wife 
under  a  certain  decree, 
140. 

History,  some  conspicuous  women 
who  have  appeared  in, 
126-132. 

Hitting,  husband  willing  to  pay 
any  reasonable  charge 
for  the  satisfaction  of, 
his  wife,  154. 

Home,  case  where  husband  driven 
from,    yet    liable    for    the 
support   of,    59-64. 
invaded    by    recent   legislation, 


the   word,    being   ruined,    77. 

generally   wrecked   by   women, 
105-108. 

some    causes    alleged    for    the 
destruction     of    the,     106- 
108. 
sweet  home,  68. 

ideal,     portrayed      by      Camp- 
bell,  146. 

supplanted    by    residence,    158. 


332 


SHALL  WOMEN   VOTE? 


being  annihilated  by  present 
day  infidelity,  176-177. 

place  for  the  training  of  law 
abiding  citizens,  252. 

broken  up  by  divorce,  what 
becomes  of  the  children, 
253-254. 

father  should  be  supreme  in 
the,  265. 

being  destroyed  by  recent 
legislation,  288-289. 

would    be    ruined    by    the    suf- 
fragettes,   311. 
what  it  should  be,  323. 
Homestead    exemptions,    effect    of, 

78-80. 

Hookworm,     divorce     against     hus- 
band  who   had,   154. 
Hope,    second   marriage    a   triumph 

of,   121. 
Horseleach,    suffragettes    daughters 

of,  78. 
Hostages,    wife    and    children    are, 

given    to   fortune,   119. 
House,     wife     driven     put     of     at 
night,     asks     divorce,     87, 
88. 
"Hubby,"  the  word,  prejudicial  to 

all    husbands,    75-76. 
Hunting    and    fishing   by    husband, 
wife     bases     suit     for     di- 
vorce   partly    on,    86-87. 
Husband    and    Wife,    Chapters    on, 
15-181. 

divine  view'  of  his  relation  to 
his  wife,  15-18,  23. 

authority   of,   18. 

recent  legislation  hostile  to, 
25,  45-50,  52-59,  72-74, 
108-114,  164,  222,  260- 
261. 

former  rights  and  powers,   26. 

property  rights  of,  at  com- 
mon law,  26-30. 

liable  at  common  law  for  the 
debts  and  torts  of  his 
wife,  28-29. 

modification  of  his  rights  in 
regard  to  his  wife  s  prop- 
erty by  statute,  30-34,  41. 

sole  distributee  of  the  chat- 
tels of  his  wife,  if  she 
die  intestate,  32. 

entitled,  to  his  wife's  affec- 
tions, 34. 

may  forfeit  all  right  to  her 
estate  by  abandonment  or 
desertion,  41-42. 

may  be  put  in  jail  for  not 
supporting  wife,  43-52, 
202. 


what     is     the     "support"     for 

which    he  is  liable,    51-52. 
in   cities   of   over   15,000,   may 

be    sent    to    work    on    the 

roads       for       non-support, 

52-59. 
case     illustrating    liability     of, 

for      non-support,      when, 

driven     from     home,     59- 

64. 
rights    of,    under   law    at   time 

of    marriage,    taken    away 

by       modern       legislation, 

65-68. 
breakfasts      proposed      to      be 

taken     from,     who     stays 

out   late,    74. 
responsible       themselves       for 

some    of    their    afflictions, 

74. 

the    American,    a    byword,    75. 
picture     of,     beaten     with      a 

clothes-tree,  76. 
in  general  entitled  to  the  care 

of    the    children,    80,    222. 
rules  of  evidence  between,  and 

wife,    80-82. 
natural    head    of    the     family, 

91-101. 

now      denied      nearly      every- 
thing, 93. 
office  of,   101. 
cause     of     hostile     legislation 

against  him,   in   regard  to 

wife's     property,     102-105. 
rules     as     to     compelling     the 

payment  of  alimony,  costs 

of    suit    against    him,    and 

fees    of   opposing    counsel, 

108-114. 
Balzac's  view   of  the  trials  of, 

120. 
reduced    to    slavery,    45,    133- 

138. 

converted   into   a    "star   board- 
er" by  a  certain  d,ecree  of 

divorce,    139-140. 
hired  out  to  his  wife,   140. 
arrested    by    his    wife    on    the 

street,    140-141. 
shot  by  his  wife,   140. 
can    be    too    affectionate,    141- 

142. 

divorced,   kills   wife,    143-144. 
beaten   by   man    hired    for   the 

purpose  by   his  wife,   144- 

145. 
commits     suicide     rather     than 

pay   alimony,    147. 
wife     has     the     right     to     rob, 

in  Chicago,  147-148. 


INDEX 


333 


judicially  sentenced  to  walk 
the  floor  with  the  baby, 
152-153. 

punishment  proposed  for 
those  who  abandon  or 
fail  to  support,  instead  of 
abandoning  and  failing  to 
support,  153-154. 

wife  tried  for  the  killing  of 
her,  155. 

shoots  wife  Christmas  Day, 
155-156. 

kills  wife  and  commits  sui- 
cide, 156-157. 

killed,  by  wife,  157. 

put  in  bankruptcy  by  wife, 
157-158. 

beaten  on  the  head  by  wife 
with  stone,  158. 

shot  by  his  wife,  159. 

viewed  with  an  evil  eye  by 
legislators,  162-163. 

picture  of,  beaten  with  roll- 
ing-pin, 165-166. 

deserted  during  summer  va- 
cation, 167. 

burdens  of  the  life-insurance 
system,  168-174. 

murdered  by  his  wife  for  the 
life-insurance,  172-174. 

respect  formerly  due  him  in 
Virginia,  175-176. 

better  adjustment  of  property 
rights  between,  and  wife 
could  be  effected,  177.  ^ 

new  rights  of  wife  and  child 
at  expense  of,  and  father, 
185-186. 

how  treated  in  regard  to 
management  of  property 
belonging  to  his  wife  who 
is  a  minor,  219. 

courtesy  of,  30,  32,  33,  39, 
221-222. 

as  presented  on  the  stage, 
255-256. 

suffragette  argument  to  have 
wife  supersede,  290-292. 

suffragette  system  for  final 
dethronement  of,  295. 

powers  of,  must  be  reestab- 
lished, 300-301. 

progress  of,  is  toward  slavery 

and  the  grave,  304. 
Idleness,    in   a   bachelor    and    in    a 

married    man,    122. 
Incompatibility   of   temper,    86. 
Independence  of  wife,   an    illogical 
scheme    of    marriage,    91- 
97. 
Indignities,    husband    subjected    to 


by    wife,    brings    suit    for 
divorce,   87,   88,   89,   90. 

Infamous  offence,  conviction  of, 
ground  of  divorce,  84. 

Infidelity,  new  form  of,  attacking 
the  home,  176-177. 

Inge    quoted,    103-105,    192-194. 

Injunction,  to  prevent  husband 
disposing  of  his  property 
pending  suit  for  divorce 
against  him,  108-114. 

Insane  wife,  husband,  liable  for 
the  support  of,  to  the 
relief  of  her  estate,  69. 

Insurance,  life,  burdens  of  the 
husband  under  the  over- 
doing of,  168-174. 

Irving    quoted,    121. 

Isabella,    129. 

It's  coming,  a  favorite  argument 
of  the  suffragettes,  289. 
should  be  negatived  at 
once  by  men,  313. 

Jack   of   all   trades,   290. 

Jail,  husband  may  be  put  in,  for 
not  supporting  wife,  43- 
52. 

husbands  and  fathers  liable  to 
be  put  in,  on  account  of 
irresponsibility  due  to  dis- 
honest exemption  laws, 
78-80. 

husbands  and  fathers  liable 
to  be  put  in,  for  failure 
to  pay  alimony,  costs  of 
suit,  fee  of  opposing 
counsel,  pending  suit  for 
divorce  against  him,  108- 
114. 

used  to  enforce  obligation  of 
husband  to  support  wife, 
while  there  is  no  means 
of  enforcing  the  dis- 
charge of  her  duties  to 
him,  135-136. 

only  place  a  certain  hus- 
band could  sleep  in 
peace,  142. 

putting    married    "loafers"    in, 

how        the        punishment 

should  be  made  to   fit  the 

crime,    153-154. 

awaits   the    husband    who   does 

not    pay    alimony,    163. 
would    await     parents      under 
compulsory       educa  t  i  o  n 
scheme,    167-168. 
men     seen     in,     for     non-sup- 
port,   179. 

father  may  be  put  in,  for  not 
supporting  child,  202-206. 


334 


SHALL  WOMEN   VOTE? 


whole  adult  population  liable 
to  be  put  in,  under  act 
intended  to  protect  chil- 
dren under  seventeen, 
205-206. 

father  may  be  put  in  for  giv- 
ing various  articles  to  his 
children,    211-212. 
effect    on    children    of   hearing 
of     their      fathers      being 
put     in,     for    non-support, 
232. 
suggestion    to    aid    fathers    in 

keeping  out  of,  262-265. 
putting    husband^    and    fathers 
in,  the  method  adopted  to 
make    an    illogical    system 
work,    267-268. 

Janus,    temple   of,    159-160. 

Jealousy  of  wife  and  disturbance 
in  his  occupation,  alleged 
as  ground  of  divorce,  88. 

Jephthah's    daughter,    196-198. 

Jezebel,   127. 

Johnson  quoted,   121,   123,   124. 

Josephine,  her  idea  of  the  glory 
of  women,  100. 

Judges,  their  proper  duties  not 
that  of  regulating  fami- 
lies, 253. 

Jus  vi  tcenecisque,  191-199. 

Just  causes,  what  are  they,  for 
the  wilful  neglect  of  wife 
and  minor  children,  52. 

Justice  of  the  Peace,  jurisdiction 
over  husbands  proposed 
to  be  given  to,  72-73. 

Juvenal   quoted,    104,    119. 

Juvenile  courts,  plan  of  opera- 
tions proposed  for  local, 
48-50. 

manifestation  and  result  of 
decay  of  parental  author- 
ity, 206. 

not  worth  as  much  as  a  good 
whipping,  206. 

Katharina,  her  admonition  to 
women,  98. 

Kenelm,   sister   of,   129. 

Killing,  of  wife  over  quarrel  as 
to  who  should  rise  first, 
138. 

of    son-in-law    by    his    mother- 
in-law    for    alleged    insult, 
138-139. 
husband     shot     by     his     wife, 

141. 

of  a  whole  family  by  the  fa- 
ther, 143. 

of  wife  by  divorced  husband, 
143-144. 


of  son  by   father,  145. 

of  children  by  mother,  145. 

of  nearly  all  the  members  of 
a  family,  146. 

of  whole  family  by  the  wife, 
148-149. 

wife  tried  for  the,  of  her  hus- 
band, 155. 

wife  killed,  husband  commits 
suicide,  156-157. 

husband   killed  by   wife,   157. 

husband  killed,  by  his  wife 
for  his  life  insurance, 
172-174. 

of  father  by  son,  234. 

of  aunt  by  nephew,  234-235. 

of  one  child  of  seven  by  an- 
other, 237. 

Kipling  quoted,   121,   124,   125. 
Knitting  women,  131. 
"Land  of  the  free,"  etc.,  77. 
Landor  quoted,  121. 
Latin,     quotations    from    the,    104, 

105. 

Law,   its   effect  upon   standards   of 
conduct,   24. 

recent,  hostile  to  husbands 
and  fathers,  25,  45-50, 
52-59,  72-74,  108-114, 
164,  199-254,  260-261. 

suits,  women  generally  re- 
sponsible therefor,  119. 

how  interpreted  and  admin- 
istered in  cases  of  do- 
mestic disorder,  160-163. 

of  Virginia  calculated  to  dis- 
courage marriage,  164. 

effect  of  repeal  of  recent  laws 
in  relation  to  husband  and 
wife,  177. 

everybody  should  be  made  to 
obey  the,  97,  250. 

hard  cases  make  bad,  262, 
267. 

we  have  too  much,  264-265. 

regulating  domestic  relations 
should  be  in  accordance 
with  our  natures,  and  im- 
mutable, 280. 

Code  and  Acts  of  Virginia 
referred  to  in  this  work: 

Sec.  2286  A,  30,  39. 

Acts  1899-1900,  p.  1240,  31, 
32,  41. 

Sec.  2291,  31,  219,  222. 

Sec.  2292  A;  Acts  1891-92,  p. 
391,  32. 

Sec.  2257,  32,  84. 

Sec.  2258,  84,  86. 

Sec.  2548,  33. 

Sec.  2293,  33,  222. 


INDEX 


335 


Sec.   2556,  33,  42. 

Sec.  2294,  41. 

Acts  1904,  p.  208,  44,  65. 

Acts    1910,    p.    570,    44,    204, 

263,  264. 

Acts  1912,  p.  396,  56. 
Sec.  1707,  69. 
Sec.  4117,  69. 
Sec.  2610,  80. 
Sec.  3846   A;    Acts   1901-Z.   p. 

798,  81. 
Sec.  2261,  108. 
Sees.    2599,    2600,    2603,    1606, 

200. 

Sec.  2610,  201. 
Sec.  2263,  201,  220. 
Sec.  2581,  201,  228. 
Sec.  2589,  201. 
Sec.  2582,  201. 
Sec.  2583,  201. 
Sec.  2614  A,  202. 
Sec.  3795  C;  Acts  1904,  p. 

208,  202,  232. 
Sec.  4124,  206. 
Sec.  3795;  Acts  1901-2,  p. 

125,  207. 
Sec.  3902  A;  Acts  1897-f,  p. 

859,  208,  228,  264. 
Sec.  4178  D,  209,  228,  264. 
Sec.  4173  E,  209. 
Sec.  3795  A;  Acts  1896-6,  p. 

701,  210,  263. 
Sec.  1105  D,  210. 
Acts  1912,  p.  621,  211. 
Sec.  2603,  211,  222. 
Sec.  3828  B,  212,  263. 
Sec.  726,  212. 
Sec.  3828  C,  212,  263. 
Charter  of  Norfolk,  Sec.  19, 

paragraph  20,  213. 
Sec.  2600;  2602;  2603;  2564; 

215. 

Sec.  2614,  215. 
Sec.  2618;  2629;  3255;  8436; 

215. 

Sec.  3652  C,  216. 
Sec.  2615,  2616,  216. 
Acts  1908,  p.  45,  216. 
Sec.  2513,  217. 
Sec.  2548,  217,  222. 
Sec.  2556,  218,  222. 
Sec.  2513,  218. 
Sec.  2557,  2548,  219. 
Sec.  2904,  219. 
Sec.  2218,  220. 
Sec.  2600,  221. 
Sec.  2597,  221. 
Sec.  2286,  A;  222. 
Sec.  2597,  222. 
Sec.  2557,  222. 
Sec.  2218,  223. 


Sec.  2591,  223. 

Acts  1910,  p.    434-7,   244,   264. 
Lawful   authority   must  be   obeyed 

by  all,  97,  250. 

Lease,   of  land  belonging  to  child, 
father    cannot   make,    216. 
Lee,  Mrs.,  her  relation  to  her  hus- 
band, 176. 

Legislation,  apparent  lack  of  care 
with  which  effected,  59, 
204,  245. 

objection  to  the  recent,  in  do- 
mestic matters,  68-69. 

recent,  all  directed  to  duties 
husband  owes  wife — no 
regard  paid  to  duties  she 
owes  him,  68-69. 

"freak,"  proposed  against  hus- 
bands, 72-74. 

dishonest  exemptions  part  of 
the  cause  of  hostile, 
against  husbands  and  fath- 
ers, 78-80. 

cause  of,  against  the  husband 
in  regard  to  his  wife's 
property,  102-104. 

now  conceived  on  the  theory 
that  the  men  are  all  bad, 
and,  the  women  all  good, 
126-132. 

husbands  viewed  with  an  evil 
eye  in  matters  of,  162- 
163. 

fathers  also,  219-220. 

importance  of,  affecting  do- 
mestic relations,  204. 

contrast  afforded  by  ancient 
rules  of  law,  and  modern, 
as  affecting  the  rights  of 
men,  214-215. 

recentness  of,  hostile  to  fath- 
ers and  husbands,  228. 

natural  construction  of  do- 
mestic life  being  over- 
thrown by  recent,  248- 
250;  261-262. 

illogical  system  substituted, 
249. 

recent,  particularly  hostile  to 
husbands,  257-258. 

much  recent,  should  be  re- 
pealed, 260,  316. 

recent,  calculated  to  prejudice 
woman's  position  in  the 
South,  285-286. 

man's   unfitness  for,  according 

to  a  suffragette,   293-295. 
Life  insurance,  husbands  burdened 

by  overdoing  of,  168-174. 
the  father  the  source  and  ori- 
gin of,  186-187. 


336 


SHALL  WOMEN   VOTE? 


dignity  of,  lowered  by  ideas  of 
some  women,  303. 

not  worth  living  under  wom- 
an's rule,  303. 

Life  Insurance,  burdens  of  the  hus- 
band under  overdoing  of, 
168-174. 

bad  policy  of,  to  the  individ- 
ual. 170-171. 

bad  policy  of,  to  the  State, 
171. 

husband  murdered  by  his  wife 
for  the,  172-174. 

man  whose  premium  falls  d,ue 
to-day,  178. 

widow  who  has  just  collected, 

181. 

Liquor,  female  suffrage  viewed  in 
connection  with,  question, 
306-309. 

"Loafers,"      married,      who      hang 
around  their  families,  pun- 
ishment proposed  for,  153- 
154. 
"Lord!   have  mercy  on  a  married 

man,"  58. 

Louis  XVI.,  men  of  to-day  acting 
with  same  irresolution  as, 
312. 

Love,  between  husband  arid  wife 
should  be  promoted  by 
proper  rules  of  marriage, 
94-95,  268-269. 

marriage  from,  compared,  with 
vinegar  from  wine,  123. 

relief  to  be  out  of,  123. 

of  father  for  child  reduced  to 
minimum  under  recent 
laws,  231-232. 

in  all  the  family  relations,  pro- 
moted   by     regulating    the 
family  in  accordance  with 
the  Bible,  268-269. 
Lytton  quoted,  120. 
Macomber,    Mary   F.,    quoted,    106- 

107. 

Maine  quoted,  191-192. 
Man,   whether  woman    be    now    a 
blessing  to,  125. 

loss  to,  from  present  woman's 
movement,  132-133,  273- 
283,  296-299,  303,  315-316. 

"Down  with  the  tyrant,"  133. 

wife  kills  husband  because  un- 
able to  make  a,  of  him, 
141. 

what  woman's  suffrage  would 
do  for,  162-163. 

beginning  to  avoid  marriage, 
164-166. 


coercive  measures  to  induce 
men  to  marry,  165. 

age  when  an  honest,  and  a 
wise  man  marry,  123. 

attacked  in  regard  to  control 
of  women  and  children, 
251-254. 

present  position  of,  in  regard 
to  woman's  suffrage,  279- 
280. 

his  unfitness  for  legislation,  ac- 
cording to  a  suffragette, 
293-295. 

in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage, 
needs  help,  295-296. 

changed  relations  between,  and 
woman,  296-299. 

alleged  to  be  out  of  date,  296- 
299. 

reward  he  has  received  for 
yielding  to  woman's  de- 
mands, 299. 

the  reserve  force  in  every 
State,  302. 

not  the  ballot,  but,  woman's 
best  protector,  304-306. 

should  settle  all  political  ques- 
tions, 290,  307-308,  313. 

result  if  political  power  of, 
were  lost,  308-309. 

condition  of,  would  be  lowered 
by  woman's  suffrage,  309. 

why,  should  oppose  the  suf- 
fragette, 311-313. 

birthright  of,  involved  in  suit 
brought  by  the  suffra- 
gettes, 312-313. 

acting  with  irresolution  in  the 
face  of  a  great  danger, 
312. 

asked  by  the  suffragettes  to 
give  up  highest  rights  for 
nothing,  318-319. 

position  of,  in  woman's  suf- 
frage and  other  States, 
318-322. 

Maps,  used  by  the  suffragettes  to 
lampoon  the  States  which 
do  not  agree  with  them, 
293. 

Margaret  of  Anjou,    130. 
Marie  Antoinette,   130. 
Marriage,    covenants    in    the   cere- 
mony of,  18-23. 

importance  of  proper  rules 
regulating,  23-24. 

modifications  of,  according  to 
the  ideas  of  women,  75. 

vulgarization   of,    90-91. 

should  be  so  regulated  as  to 
best  promote  love  be- 


INDEX 


337 


tween  husband  and,  wife, 

94-97. 
condition   of,    in   Rome   under 

the  Empire,  103-105. 
respected  in  Virginia,  116. 
under  new  legislation,  no 

longer   Christian,    117-118. 
Socrates'   views   of,    118. 
proper    age    for,    according    to 

Thales,  119. 
inherent    difficulties    besetting 

the   relation   of,    118-126. 
viewed    by   those    who    are    in 

and    those    who    are    out, 

119. 

and   hanging,   119,    123. 
curse  of,  119. 
a   desperate  thing,   119. 
why  so  few  are  happy,  119. 
in  haste,  119. 
early,   120,  124. 
monotony   of,    120. 
familiar  state  of,  120. 
courtship  compared  to,  120. 
a  desperate  thing,   120. 
attracts       light-headed       men, 

121. 

a  field  of  battle,  121. 
death    less    serious   than,    121, 

125. 

often  foolhardy  step,  121. 
after   forty,    121,   123. 
second,    a    triumph    of    hope, 

121. 

what    kind    of    feast,    121. 
the  beginning  of  trouble,  121. 
debt   leads   to,    121. 
awaits  men   at  the  crossroads, 

122. 
if     sold     with     return     ticket, 

122. 

none   in   Heaven,   122. 
compared  with  love,  123. 
the  nearness  of,  123. 
age    when    honest    men,    and 

wise  men  marry,    123. 
a  beginning,   123. 
best   month    for,   124. 
a    foolish     act,     according    to 

Trollope,    124. 

times  have  changed  after,  124. 
may  be   one  mode   of   misery, 

124,    124. 
must    take    care    of    ourselves 

and     another     when     we 

marry,  124. 
thorn-bit  of,   125. 
must  be  good  after,  125. 
contracts,    what    could    be    ef- 
fected by  such,  136. 


present    disordered     state     of, 

137-181. 

contract,  specimen  of  one 
drawn  in  accordance  to 
new  ideas,  151-152. 
sound  public  policy  demands 
the  encouragement  of, 
163-166. 

laws   of   Virginia  tend  to   dis- 
courage,  164. 
men   beginning  to   avoid,    164- 

166,    298-299. 
coercive    measures    to     induce 

men    to    marry,    165-166. 
indispensable      to     the     State, 

165. 

remedies  needed  to  improve 
present  condition  of, 
174-177. 

contrast  between  condition 
of,  in  the  past  and  pres- 
ent in  Virginia,  175-176. 
consent  of  guardian  to,  over- 
rides objection  of  par- 
ents, 220. 

consent   of   father   superior  to 
that  of  mother    in    regard 
to,   of  child,   222-223. 
basis    on    which,    should    rest, 

299-301. 

poor   prospect    for,    in    the   fu- 
ture,   300-301. 
Martha    Washington,    her    relation 

to  her  husband,  175. 
Martial  quoted,  104. 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,   129. 
Medea,  127. 
Merchant     of     Venice,     quotation 

from,  94. 

Meredith   quoted,    120,    121. 
"Mess,"    men    alleged    by    suffra- 
gettes to  have  made  a,  of 
public    affairs,    287-289. 
Metellus,    views    of,    in    regard    to 

marriage,   104. 
Millionaire,     child     may    be,     and 

father  poor,   218. 
Millstones    grinding   husbands    and 

fathers,    255-269. 

Minor,    estate    of    married    woman 
who    is    a,    committed    to 
a   receiver,   31-32. 
real  estate  of,  may  be  sold  by 

the  court,  31. 
Misery,     marriage     may     be     one 

<  mode    of,    124,    124. 
Mississippi   Bubble,   282. 
Missouri,    specimens    of    suits    for 
divorce   in,    86-90. 


338 


SHALL  WOMEN  VOTE? 


Mistakes,  political,  hard  to  rec- 
tify, 317-322. 

"Mister"  to  be  modified  for  mar- 
ried men,  75. 

Moab,  King  of,  offers  son  as  a 
burnt  offering,  196. 

Mobocracy,  we  are  moving  tow- 
ard, 309. 

Money,  divorce  asked  for  because 
husband  not  making 
enough,  154-155. 

Montaigne  quoted,  119. 

Morgue,  man  seen   at,   179. 

Moses,  control  of  children  under 
the  law  of,  214. 

Mother,   kills  children,  145. 
honor  due  to,  185. 
relation     of,     unduly     empha- 
sized, 186. 

rights  between,  and  father, 
222-223. 

Museum  of  legal   curiosities,   283. 

Name,  of  wife,  20. 

putting  property  in,  of  wife, 
32-33,  35-42,  217-218, 
232. 

parents  called  by  first,  by 
children,  303. 

Napoleon  encouraged  marriage, 
164. 

Nearness  of  the  relation  of  mar- 
riage, 123. 

Necessaries,  diamonds  held  to  be, 
in  Indiana,  70-72. 

"Needles  and  pins,"   121. 

Negro,  Reformatory  Ass'n  of  Va., 
committing  children  to, 
209. 

danger  from,  voting  as  com- 
pared to  women,  304-306. 

"New  woman"  develops  into  the 
suffragette,  273-283. 

Next  friend,  not  the  father,  must 
bring  suit  for  child,  215. 

"No  Wedding  Bells  for  Me," 
300. 

Non-support,  husband  may  be  put 
in  jail  for,  of  wife,  43- 
52. 

and    fathers    may    be    put    in 
jail    for,    of    child,    43-52. 
husbands  and  fathers  in  cities 
over  15,000,  may   be  sent 
to  work  in  chains  on  the 
roads  for,  52-59. 
case     illustrating     liability     of 
husband,   for,    60-64. 

Norfolk  City,  responsibility  of 
parents,  guardians  and 


masters  of  apprentices  in, 
212-213. 

Northwest   Passage,   283. 
Obedience,  universal  necessity  for, 

100. 

disorder  in  the  home  due  to 
lack  of,  to  father,  233- 
254. 

"Obedient     parents,"     women     re- 
sponsible    for     this     idea, 
303. 
Obey,  wife's  duty  to,  19. 

propriety     of     this     rule,     97- 

101. 

what  is  meant  by,   98-99. 
all    should    be    made    to,    the 

law,  250. 
October,  best  month  for  marriage, 

124. 

Office  of  husband,  101. 
Olympias,  128. 
Order,     necessary     for     happiness, 

92-93. 

lack  of,  in  the  relation  of  hus- 
band   and   wife,    cause   of 
prevalence  of  divorce,  97. 
O'Rell   quoted,   123. 
Overseer    of    the    poor,    may    take 
child   from   father   in  cer- 
tain   cases,    201. 
Parents,    honor    d,ue    to,    enjoined 

by   the   Bible,    185. 
father    the    principal,    186. 
responsibility         of,          under 
charter    of    Norfolk,    212- 
213. 

what  are   the  rights  and  pow- 
ers  of,   244-245. 
even     unworthy,     entitled     to 

their   children,   266-268. 
obedient,     women     responsible 

for  idea  of,  303. 
called  by  their  first  names  by 

children,  303. 

Paternal     authority,     of     the     an- 
cients,   187-199. 
instances     of,     in    the    Bible, 

194-198. 

present  lack  of,  199-254. 
juvenile     courts     manifestation 
and    result   of    decline   of, 
206. 
what    is    left   of,    in    Virginia, 

207. 

final    blow   to,   211,    213-214. 
how    enforced    under   the    Mo- 
saic law,   214. 

object  in  view  in  presenting 
the  ancient  rules  relating 
to,  214-215. 


INDEX 


339 


reestablishment  of,  would  be 
improvement  over  present 
system  founded  on  ill- 
considered  legisla  t  i  o  n, 
249-250. 

respect  for  all  authority  is 
weakened,  when,  is  broken 
down,  252. 

should  be  preserved  in  at  least 

one    State,    265. 
Patria  potestas,  187-199. 
Penitentiary,     estate     of     husband 
confined  in,  liable  for  his 
wife's    support,    as    if    he 
were  dead,   69. 

proposed  as  a  punishment  for 
non-support,  72. 

sentence  to,  ground  of  di- 
vorce, 84. 

husband  rather  go  to,  than 
live  with  his  wife,  148- 
150. 

child  accompanying  mother 
to,  or  born  in,  father  has 
apparently  no  rights  as 
to,  206. 

Personal  property,  wife  had  no 
share  in  husband's,  at 
common  law,  28. 

Picture,  of  husband  and  wife, 
husband  in  miniature,  74. 

of  husband  beaten  over  the 
head  with  a  clothes-tree, 
76. 

divorce  asked  for  because 
husband  had,  taken  with 
another  woman,  86. 

of  husband  beaten  over  the 
head  with  a  rolling-pin, 
165-166. 

Pindar  quoted,   120. 
Pittacus   quoted,    119. 
Pliny  the  elder  quoted,  125. 
Plutarch   quoted,    119. 
Policy,   sound   public,   requires  the 
encouragement      of      mar- 
riage,  163-166. 

bad,  of  life  insurance  system 
when  overdone,  170-171. 

what,  most  likely  to  produce 
domestic  happiness,  224- 
254. 

movement  for  uniform  laws, 
a  bad,  for  Virginia,  117. 

of  vesting  discretionary  pow- 
ers in  criminal  courts,  a 
dangerous,  247-248. 

of  adapting  woman's  suffrage, 
a  political  question  of  the 
highest  importance,  317- 
322 


good,  for  the  South  not  to 
follow  the  lead  of  the 
West,  in  the  matter  of 
woman's  suffrage,  316- 
322. 

Political  mistakes  hard  to  correct, 
317-322. 

Pollock  and  Maitland  quoted,  21- 
23,  103. 

Polydectes,   wife  of,    127-128. 

Pompadour,   130. 

Poor  Richard  quoted,  125. 

Potiphar,   wife   of,    127. 

President,  attempt  at  assassina- 
tion of,  by  boy  of  seven- 
teen, 236-237. 

Prester   John,   283. 

Priest  of  the  hearth,  father  for- 
merly the,  187-188. 

Prison  Ass'n  of  Va.,  committing 
children  to,  208-209.  ^ 

Privileged  class  of  criminals 
made  out  of  children  un- 
der seventeen,  239-250. 

Privileges  of  women,  284,  286. 
contrasted     with     rights,     285- 
286. 

Probation,  fathers  and  husbands 
left  out  of  jail  on,  43-44, 
202-206. 

Probation  officer,  new  device  for 
punishing  husband^  and 
fathers  for  non-support, 
52-59. 

in  relation  to  crimes  com- 
mitted by  children  under 
seventeen,  239-250. 

"Progressive  ideas,"  113-114,  175, 
304. 

Property,   rights  of  husband  as  to, 

at   common    law,    26-30. 
putting   in    name   of   wife,    32- 
33,     35-42,     79,     178,    217- 
218,   232. 

tendency  to  vest  all,  in  the 
women  of  the  State,  39- 
41. 

of  wife  lost  to  husband  by 
abandonment  or  deser- 
tion, 41. 

individual         or         community 
rights  in,  as  between  hus- 
band and  wife,   102-105. 
more    equitable    system    in    re- 
lation   to,    owned    by   hus- 
band   and    wife    might    be 
established,,    177. 
all    belonged    to    husband    and 
father    under    ancient    Ro- 
man  law,    189-194. 
father   has   no   interest   in,   of 


340          SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


living     child,      200,      211, 
215. 

of  child  cannot  be  leased, 
sold,  nor  encumbered  by 
parent,  216. 

small  sum  belonging  to  child, 

arising    in    suit,    may    be 

paid  to  one  of  its  parents, 

216. 

descent  of,  on  death  of  child, 

217-219. 

control    of,    when    owned    by 
married  woman  who  is  a 
minor,   219. 
father  preferred  in  descent  of, 

222. 

burned  down  by  children,  235. 
attacked     by     children,      235- 
236. 

Protection,  ballot  not  needed  for, 
of  women,  304-306. 

Proverb,    121,   123. 

Public  policy  demands  the  en- 
couragement, not  the  dis- 
couragement of  marriage, 
163-166. 

Pursuit  and  possession,  relative 
pleasures  of,  125. 

Rabble,  the  United  States  said  to 
be  a,  262. 

Races,  value  of  the  home  in  con- 
flict between  great,  288- 
289. 

Rebekah,   127. 

Receiver,  appointed  for  estate  of  a 
married  woman  who  is  a 
minor,  31-32. 

Reconstruction,  of  society  ac- 
cording to  the  views  of 
the  suffragettes,  176-177. 
progress  of  the  South  since 
the  days  of,  should  not  be 
endangered,  304-306,  320- 
321. 

Remedies,  needed  to  improve  the 
present  condition  of 
marriage,  174-177. 

Return-ticket,  if  marriage  sold 
with,  122. 

Reuben^  195. 

Revolution,    French,   partly   caused 

by  women,   130. 
men  of  to:day  acting  with  the 
same  irresolution  as  Louis 
XVI.,    812. 

in  a  woman  after  marriage, 
125. 

Reward     man     has     received     for 


yielding    to    women's    de- 
mands,  299. 

Rights,    the    suffragettes    on    their 

way  to  demand  more,  181. 

of  wife    and   child   at   expense 

of    husband     and     father, 

185-186. 

no    addition    possible    to    gen- 
eral   sum   of,   253. 
of    men,    under    dominion    of 
women,    274-276,    314-315. 
of      women      contrasted      with 

privileges,     284-286. 
men   asked   by   suffragettes   to 
give      up,      for      nothing, 
318-319. 

Roads,    husbands    and    fathers    li- 
able   to    be    sent    to    work 
in    chains    on    the    public, 
when    they    live    in    cities 
of  over   15,000,    52-59. 
father  may  be  sent  to,  for  not 
<  supporting   child,    202-206. 

Rob,  wife  has  the  right  to,  hus- 
band in  Chicago,  147-148. 

Rolling-pin,  picture  of  husband 
beaten  over  the  head 
with,  165-166. 

Romanism,  its  effect  upon  the 
common  law  rights  of  the 
husband,  103-104. 

Rome,  "Society  in  under  the 
Caesars,"  103-105,  192- 
194. 

condition  of  marriage  in, 
under  the  empire,  103- 
105. 

rules  of  domestic   law  in, 
186-194. 

Salary  of  husband,  all  claimed  by 
his  wife,  150,  151-152, 
153. 

of  child  not  ( liable  for  the 
debts  of  his  parents,  215- 
216. 

Sale,  of  land  belonging  to  child, 
father  cannot  make,  216. 

Samson  in  prison,  a  type  of  men 
under  woman's  rule,  315- 
316. 

Scott,  quoted  in  regard  to  disposi- 
tion of  women,  289. 

Selden   quoted,   119,    120-121. 

Seneca,  consolation  for  mother 
who  had  lost  her  only 
son,  105. 

Seriousness  of  life,  tired  man  un- 
fit to  consider,  according 
to  a  suffragette,  293-295. 


INDEX 


34i 


Seventeen,  Act  intended  to  pro- 
tect children  under,  205- 
206. 

children  under,  allowed  to 
commit  one  crime  each, 
with  more  or  less  im- 
punity, 239-250. 

Shakespeare  quoted,  94,  98,  119, 
124. 

"She   sifted  the  meal,"   40. 

Ship  of  State,  what  most  in 
danger  from,  252. 

Slavery,  husbands  and  fathers  re- 
duced  to,    45,   133-136. 
progress    of    husbands   is   tow- 
ard,   and   the   grave,    304, 
308-309. 

Sleep,  jail  the  only  place  a  cer- 
tain husband  could  in 
peace,  142. 

husband  made  to,  with  dog, 
137-138. 

"Society  in  Rome  under  the 
Caesars,"  quotations  from, 
103-105,  192-194. 

Socrates  quoted,   118. 

Solomon   quoted,   118. 

Son,  the  word  passing  out  of  use, 

76. 

killed   by   father,    145. 
father  killed  by,  234. 

Sophia,    Princess,    129. 

South  Carolina,  no  divorce  allowed 

in,   83,  118. 
Sea  Bubble,  282. 
attentions    due    to    women    in 

the,  285. 

men  in,  should  not  follow  ex- 
ample of  those  in  the 
West,  318-322. 

Sovereignity,  doubtful,  disorders 
result  from,  in  states  and 
families,  159-160. 

Spanish   Inquisition,   129-130. 

"Star"  boarder,  husband  converted 
into  by  a  certain  decree 
of  divorce,  139-140. 

State,  rights  doctrine,  involved  in 
uniform  divorce  laws,  116- 
118. 

laws    exclusively    regulate    the 
domestic      relations,      160- 
163. 
marriage       indispensable       to, 

165. 

bad  policy  to  our,  of  the  over- 
doing of  life  insurance, 
171. 

board  of  Charities  and  Cor- 
rections may  take  depen- 
dent wayward  or  delin- 


quent children   from  their 
parents,   211. 

its  rights  in  regard  to 
children  under  seven- 
teen who  have  com- 
mitted crimes,  243, 
244. 

authority  of,  affected,  when 
parental  authority  broken 
down,  252. 

one,  should  be  kept  where  a 
man  was  the  real  father 
of  his  children,  265. 

interfering  in  domestic  af- 
fairs, bad  effect  of,  267- 
268. 

no  benefit  to,  by  increase  of 
votes,  277-279. 

reserve   force  in  every,  302. 

one  at  least  should  remain  as 
a  retreat  to  men  afflicted 
by  woman's  suffrage,  319- 
322. 

St.  Bartholomew,  massacre  of,  130. 
Stevenson    quoted,    121,    121,    122, 

122,   124,   125,   126. 
St.   Hill   quoted,    123. 
Stone,   wife   beats   husband  in   the 

head   with,    168. 
Street,    husband    arrested    by    his 

wife  on,   140-141. 

Suffragette,    true    daughter   of    the 
horseleach,    78. 

disturbance  of  relations  be- 
tween men  and  women, 
114-115. 

their  theories  as  to  the  recon- 
struction of  society,  176- 
177. 

on  their  way  from  the  card- 
party  to  the  Suffrage 
meeting,  181. 

develops  from  the  "New 
Woman,"  273-283. 

movement  hostile  to  man, 
273-276,  280-281. 

compared  to  Delilah,  276. 

plan  to  improve  politics  by 
doubling  the  number  of 
voters,  278-279. 

supposed  case  of  court  com- 
posed of,  281. 

if  demands  of,  be  right,  the 
race  has  been  wrong,  282- 
283. 

samples  of  their  argument, 
287-289,  289,  290-292, 
292-293,  293,  293-295,  296- 
299,  304-309. 

male,  should  be  distrusted, 
295-296. 


342 


SHALL   WOMEN   VOTE? 


seek  to  destroy  domestic  au- 
thority, 309-810. 

described,    310-311. 

why  men  should  oppose,  311- 
313. 

have  brought  suit  against  men, 
312-313. 

their  demands  a  political  ques- 
tion   of    the    highest    im- 
portance,  317-322. 
Suicide,  not  even  left  to  you  after 
marriage,  125. 

of    husband    rather    than    pay 

alimony,  147. 

Suit,    for    child,    brought    by    next 
friend,  215. 

against  child,  defended  by 
guardian  ad  lit  em,  215. 

small  sum  arising  in,  belong- 
ing to  child,  may  be  paid 
to  one  of  its  parents,  216. 

brought  by  suffragettes  to  de- 
prive men  of  their  birth- 
right, 312-313. 

Suitable  place  of  abode,  husband 
must  furnish,  although 
driven  from  home,  59-64. 
Summer  vacations,  husbands  and 
fathers  deserted  during, 
167. 

deserted  houses  during^  179. 
Superiority,  assumption  of,  on  the 

part  of  women,  132. 
Support,  indefiniteness  of  the  idea 
of,   51-52. 

of  insane  wife  to  be  at  hus- 
band's expense  to  the  re- 
lief of  her  estate,  69. 

husband's  estate  liable  for 
wife's,  when  he  is  con- 
fined in  the  penitentiary, 
as  if  he  were  dead,  69. 

diamonds  held  necessary  part 
of,  in  Indiana,  70-72. 

women  have  always  managed 
to  make  men,  them,  123- 
124. 

wife  must  be  supported,  even 
if  she  be  rich  and  her 
husband  poor,  135. 

punishment   proposed   for  hus- 
bands  who   desert   or    fail 
to,  their  families,  153-154. 
Suttee,    171-172,    174-175. 
Swift  quoted,   119,   122. 
Taming    of    the    Shrew,    quotation 

from,  98. 

Target,    husband   a,    for   the    legis- 
lature   to    shoot    at,    162- 
163. 
Tarpeia,  128. 


Taxation  without  representation, 
fallacious  argument  of  the 
suffragettes,  292-293. 

Taxes,  on  unmarried  men  pro- 
posed, 75. 

woman's  disregard  to  the  pay- 
ment of,  302-303. 

Temperance  movement  and  wom- 
an's suffrage,  306-309. 

Texas,  common  law  rules  still  in 
force  in,  30. 

Thackeray  quoted,  123. 

Thales   quoted,    119. 

Theatre,    ushers    discharged    from, 
to    make    room    for    girls, 
178. 
women  who  were  going  to  the 

matinee,   180-181. 
one  of  the  millstones  grinding 
husbands    and    fathers    to 
pieces,  255-259. 
hostile  to    fathers,   255-257. 

"They  saw  two  men  by  the  road 
side  sit,"  122. 

"Times  have  changed  for  him  who 
marries,"  124. 

Tongue,  terrors  of  a  woman's,  121. 

Too  much  women,  251-252. 

Tragedy,  cause  of  some  of  the 
domestic  tragedies,  50-51. 
resulting  from  the  opposition 
of  women  to  men,  the 
theme  of  this  work,  303- 
304. 

Trains,  child  amuses  himself  try- 
ing to  wreck,  237-238. 

Trollope   quoted,   124. 

Tulip  craze,  282. 

Tyranny,  extension  of  the  doc- 
trine of  contempt  of 
court  lead.s  to,  243. 

Uniform   laws,   on   divorce  not   de- 
sirable,  116-118. 
movement   for,    bad  policy   for 
Virginia,    117. 

United  States,  what  is  the  matter 

with   the,    251-252. 
ship    of    State    in    danger    of 

being   wrecked,    252. 
said  to  be  a  rabble,    262. 

Unworthy  parents,  even  these  en- 
titled to  their  children, 
266-268. 

Vacations,  husbands  and  fathers 
deserted  during  summer, 
167. 

Victoria,  her  view  of  the  wife's 
duty  to  obey,  99. 

Violence  and  bloodshed  in  thfl 
fami'v  circle,  159, 


INDEX 


343 


Virginia,  traditions  violated  by  re- 
cent legislation,  223. 

no  need  to  adopt  laws  of  other 
states  in  regard  to  the 
domestic  relations,  260- 
262. 

thought  has  favored  the  privi- 
leges and  attentions  due 
to  women,  285-286. 

in  history,   287-288. 

present  condition  of,  307. 

men  of,  able  to  attend  to  its 
affairs,  314-321. 

should  set  an  example  to 
others  by  firmly  opposing 
woman's  suffrage,  316-322. 

should  afford  a  retreat  for 
men  afflicted  with  woman's 
suffrage,  321-322. 

Virtues,  certain,  which  are  not  en- 
couraged by  recent  legis- 
lation, 89-90. 

Vote,  whether  women  would,  if 
they  had  the  right,  289- 
290. 

not    needed    for    protection    of 

women,  304-306. 

Voters,  no  benefit  to  the  State  by 
increasing  number  of,  277. 

standard  of,  would  not  be  im- 
proved by  adding  women, 
314-315. 

for  women,  what  it  may  in- 
volve, 280-281. 

some   of   the   lesser   objections 

to,  302-303. 

Vulgarization  of  marriage,  90-91. 
Wedding-rings,    desired  by  women 
for  married  men,  75. 

the  torments  which  lie  in,  123. 
Weller,    views    of    Mr.,    on    matri- 
mony, 125,  125-126. 
Western,    States    demoralizing    the 
country     by     their     laws, 
162,   288,   318-319. 

legislative  ideas  of  Northern 
and,  States,  260. 

Virginia  has  nothing  to  learn 
from,  in  regard  to  the 
domestic  relations,  260- 
262. 

individualism,    262. 

arguments  of  men  from, 
States  having  adopted 
woman's  suffrage,  unre- 
liable, 321-322. 

world,  acting  with  irresolution 
in    the    face    of    a    great 
danger,  312. 
Which  one?  160, 


Whipping,   of  children   better  than 
juvenile  court,   206. 

of  children  by  order  of  court, 

207-208,   228. 
White    slaves,    girls    sold    by    their 

mothers  as,  131-132. 
Why  men  are  not  marrying,  50-52, 
56-58,  59-64,  75-77,  92-93, 
132-136,  159-166,  199,  224- 
225,  257-258,  265,  267- 
268,  300. 

why  women  are  not  marrying, 

296-299. 

Widow,    in    the    "smart"    turnout, 
179. 

who  had  just  collected  the  life- 
insurance,  181. 

marriage  to  a  certain  kind  of, 
a  cure  for  the  gout,  125- 
126. 

Wife,    divine  view   of  her  relation 
to  her  husband.   18-23. 

duty   of,  to  obey,   19. 

giving  of,  to  the  husband,  19. 

name  of,  20. 

dower  at  common   law,   27. 

no  right  to  make  will  at  com- 
mon law,  28. 

had  no  share  of  her  husband's 
personality  at  common 
law,  28. 

husband  liable  for  the  debts 
and  torts  of,  at  common 
law,  28-29. 

could  make  no  contract  at 
common  law,  29. 

rights  of  property  under  Vir- 
ginia statute,  30-34. 

on  death  intestate  of,  her  per- 
sonalty passes  to  her  hus- 
band,  32. 
otherwise  as  to  real  estate, 


putting   property    in    name   of, 

32-33,  35-41,   217-218,   232. 
can   be   too    loyal    to    her    hus- 
band      according       to       the 

ideas  of  the  local  juvenile 

court,   48-50. 
duties  of,  to   husband   ignored 

in   recent    enactments,   68- 

69. 
rules      of      evidence     between 

husband    and,    80-82. 
independence    of,    an    unphilo- 

spphic     scheme     of     mar- 
riage,   91-97. 
present   position  of,    in   regard 

to    her    husband    and    her 

property,    93-97. 
Pittacus,  a  plague  to  him,  119. 


344 


SHALL  WOMEN   VOTE? 


happiness  with  or  without  a, 
122. 

the  man  who  had,  and  who 
had  not  buried  his,  122. 

need,  of  a  fire  to  put,  in,  125. 

must  be  supported  even  if 
she  be  rich  and  the  hus- 
band poor,  135. 

killed  in  quarrel  as  to  vho 
should  get  up  first,  138. 

one  who  insisted  on  being 
"boss,"  145-146. 

has  right  to  rob  husband  in 
Chicago,  147-148. 

slaughters  the  family,  148- 
149. 

claims  the  whole  of  her  hus- 
band's salary,  150,  151- 
152,  153. 

shot  by  husband  Christmas 
day,  155-156. 

killed  by  husband  who  com- 
mits suicide,  156-157. 

kills  husband,   157. 

puts  husband  in  bankruptcy, 
157-158. 

beats  husband  in  the  head 
with  a  stone,  158. 

shoots  husband,  159. 

was  not  an  owned  chattel, 
175. 

honorable  position  of,  for- 
merly in  Virginia,  175- 
176. 

guardjan  and  husband  in  re- 
lation to  wife,  224-233. 

suffragette  argument  to  have 
her  supersede  her  hus- 
band, 290-292. 

Will,  wife  had  no  power  to  make, 
at  common  law,  28. 

infants     under     eighteen    can- 
not  make,   217. 

Women,  modification  of  the  rules 
of  marriage  according  to 
the  ideas  of,  75. 

being  ruined  by  new  legisla- 
tion, 78,  114-115. 

responsible  for  most  divorces, 
105-108. 

home-wreckers,    105-108. 

clinging  type  of,  becoming 
rarer,  114-115. 

are  what  men  choose  to  make 
them,  114. 

approved  attitude  of,  toward 
men,  114-115. 

Solomon's   comments    on,    118. 

responsible  for  most  lawsuits, 
119. 

at    least    one,    should    be    dis- 


sected by   a   man  before   mar- 
riage,   120. 
whether    one    makes    a    home 

comfortable,     121. 
terrors  of  the  tongue  of,   121. 
views     in    regard    to,    on    the 

part   of  boys   and  men   of 

forty,    123. 
have  always  managed  to  make 

men    support     them,    123- 

124. 
whether   now   a   blessing  to   a 

man,  125. 
revolution    in    the    nature    of, 

after  marriage,   125. 
doctrine   of   the  excellence  of, 

considered,    126-132. 
as     some     have     appeared     in 

history,  126-132.  _ 
assumption    of    superiority    on 

the  part   of,   132. 
are     losing     their     accomplish- 
ments,   132-133. 
what  would  happen  to  men  if, 

allowed    to    vote,    162-163. 
responsible   for  the   lax  bring- 
ing   up    of    children,    251- 

254. 

too   much,    251-252. 
"New   Woman"   develops   into 

the  suffragette,   273-283. 
movement,  some  of  the  things 

accomplished    by,    273-277. 
suffrage,       attitude       of      men 

towards,    279-280. 
and   children  craze,   282. 
attentions  they  are  entitled  to 

in  the   South,   285-286. 
characterized  by   Scott,    289. 
political    matters    not    properly 

within    field    of    work    of, 

290. 
work  of,   equally  as  important 

as    that    of    man,    but    on 

other  lines,   290. 
article   on    why,    are    not   mar- 
rying,  296-299. 
some    special     weaknesses    of, 

302-303. 
dignity     of     life     lowered     by 

ideas  of  some,  303. 
life    not    worth     living    under 

rule    of,    303. 
argument    of   this   work  based 

on  strength,  not  weakness 

of,    304. 

no   need   of   ballot   for   protec- 
tion of,  304-306. 
comparison      between      danger 

from,  and  negroes  voting, 
304-306. 


INDEX 


345 


suffrage  viewed  in  relation  to 
liquor  question,  306-309. 

elevation   of,    309. 

addition  of,  no  improvement 
in  the  electorate,  314-315. 

suffrage  a  question  of  the 
highest  political  impor- 
tance, 317-322. 


suffrage  states,  arguments  of 
men  from,  not  to  be  re- 
lied on,  321-322. 

Worship,    of    ancestors    as    divini- 
ties,  232. 

Youth,  bad  effect  of  emphasizing, 
in  the  legislation  of  a 
State,  223-254. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


4Mv'64SW 


25  tg?t; 


